IvedaAI: Job

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, and the description goes slightly beyond by explaining the response JSON envelope (status, truncated, timedOut) and how file uploads are provided. However, it doesn't describe side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements for the destructive operations, so the added value over annotations is moderate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but organized by endpoint, making it easy to scan. It is front-loaded with response notes and then lists each operation with its parameters. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'file: provide as...' appears twice, enums are repeated on different lines), but overall it is a compact reference for a multi-operation tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

All ten operations and their parameters are covered, and the response envelope is explained. However, with no output schema, the description doesn't detail the response body structure per operation (beyond status/truncated/timedOut), and it omits error handling or authentication notes, which would improve completeness for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema only defines generic 'query' and 'path' objects without parameter-level details. The description fills this gap entirely by enumerating every parameter with types, enums, required markers, and default formats (e.g., types*:string enum:RetrieveJob|StreamJob|UploadJob). This is essential for correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'IvedaAI API — Job operations' and lists every REST endpoint for /api/jobs (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE) with clear labels like 'Get jobs', 'Create job', 'Cancel job by camera'. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on cameras, alerts, etc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a complete list of operations, allowing an agent to pick the right one based on the action needed (e.g., 'DELETE /api/jobs/{jobId}' for deleting a job). Context is clear, but there are no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements or references to alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.