Create Job

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

The description discloses that jobs are asynchronous and run in the background, which is not conveyed by the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true). This adds behavioral context beyond the structured fields, but it stops short of explaining the job lifecycle (e.g., polling via gorgias_get_job, response format, or failure handling).

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 a single sentence (with dash), front-loading the endpoint and action, followed by a brief rationale for background jobs. No fluff; every clause adds value.

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?

While the schema thoroughly documents all 4 parameters, the description lacks information about return values (no output schema) and the need to monitor job progress via sibling tools. Given the tool's complexity and async nature, a brief mention of 'poll job status via get_job' would improve completeness. Still, the description covers the main use cases.

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 description coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, including dependencies (e.g., applyMacro needs macro_id + ticket_ids, importMacro needs url). The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new asynchronous job' with the HTTP endpoint, clarifying it creates jobs rather than executing operations synchronously. It lists concrete examples of long-running tasks (bulk updates, macros, exports, imports), distinguishing it from siblings like gorgias_get_job, gorgias_list_jobs, gorgias_update_job, and gorgias_cancel_job.

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 implies usage for long-running background tasks, giving examples that map to job types (bulk ticket updates, macro application, exports, imports). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative synchronous endpoints (e.g., gorgias_update_ticket for single updates), but the context is reasonably clear.

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