hcp_add_job_line_item

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotency, and destructive behavior. The description adds the critical pricing convention (input in cents, output converted to dollars), which is not present in the schema and does not contradict the 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 two compact sentences with the action front-loaded and the unit convention immediately after. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 create-style operation with annotations and an output schema, the core behavior is adequately covered: what it does, the main input gotcha (cents), and the response conversion. It lacks usage and alternative context, but those gaps are more relevant to other dimensions.

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 only parameter-level semantic added is that price is in cents, which is essential for correct invocation. With 0% schema description coverage, the other five parameters rely entirely on their names and titles, so additional prose guidance would be valuable.

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 clearly states the action (add) and resource (line item to a job) in a direct verb-object form. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling mutation tools like hcp_add_job_note or hcp_create_job, but the resource is distinct enough that the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, and it does not mention prerequisites such as the job already existing. The usage scenario is only implied by the action phrase, not stated.

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