Create Job

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

Annotations already convey the tool is not read-only and has destructive/world-changing potential. The description adds concrete behavioral details beyond annotations: specific defaults (enable_auto_populate_teams=true, show_company_logo=2), the return format (compact summary with job slug), and live-API-verified optionality. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but each sentence serves a purpose. It front-loads the primary action, then lists required and optional fields, and ends with a compact reference list. While long, it avoids filler and is efficiently organized for an agent parsing it.

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?

Given the complexity (42 params, nested objects) and the existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers prerequisites, defaults, reference tools, and return value. It tells the agent exactly what is required and where to find supporting data, making it complete for correct selection and invocation.

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?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, but the description adds value by mapping parameters to external reference tools (e.g., list_users for owner_id) and by stating defaults that are not in the schema (e.g., show_company_logo defaults to 2). This goes beyond the schema's individual property descriptions.

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 'Creates one Recruit CRM job', which is a specific verb + resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like update_job, search_jobs, and list_jobs. It also enumerates the required fields, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives by linking each parameter to the correct lookup tool (e.g., 'Use list_users for user IDs', 'search_companies or list_companies for company slugs'). It also clarifies optional fields and defaults, giving the agent a complete decision path for invocation.

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