fluig_job_add

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden — and it does disclose the critical failure mode: without serverOffline=true the job is created but silently syncs nothing. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs. It stops short of covering permissions/auth or what the call returns on success, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loads the write warning and purpose, then prerequisite, then verification path — a sensible priority order with no filler. It is dense (UI paths, cron literal, two verification routes) but each element serves a decision the caller must make; only the UI screen path is arguably excessive.

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?

For a 6-param write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the key prerequisite, the dataset-sync recipe, and post-call verification. The remaining gap is the prod `confirm` requirement and the return payload, both of which are only inferable from the schema or not documented at all.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by adding the house-standard cron literal ("0 00 02 1/1 * ? *" for 02:00 daily) and the jobType=23 ↔ datasetId coupling, which the schema only states in terse form. The prod `confirm` parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit write marker ("⚠️ ESCRITA") and a specific verb+resource ("Cria um job agendado"), which immediately distinguishes it from the read-only siblings fluig_jobs_list and fluig_job_run. It also names the concrete specialization (dataset sync via jobType=23) so an agent can tell it apart from job deletion/listing tools.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing ("Para sincronizar dataset use jobType=23 e informe datasetId") plus a hard prerequisite (dataset must have serverOffline=true, with the exact UI path and toggle name). It also names the alternatives for verification (fluig_jobs_list or QRTZ_TRIGGERS via fluig_db_query), covering both the selection and the follow-up.

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