Create job

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description usefully adds that each call consumes a new job number (explaining the non-idempotency), that the job begins Unassigned, and that creation sends no notification and stays inside Tradify. This is real context beyond the annotations, though it omits what happens on failure or whether deletions/rollback are possible.

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?

It is short, but the opening 'New job for a customer. It starts as Unassigned.' is restated almost verbatim in the third sentence, wasting the front-loaded position. The fragment style and the unexplained 'as New Job does' also cost clarity.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what a successful call returns (e.g., the new job's identifier) so the agent can chain into schedule_appointment or get_job. It covers the creation semantics and defaults well but leaves that chaining-critical detail unaddressed.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented, including the 'Default: the customer's' fallbacks that the description restates. The description adds no field-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 names a concrete verb and resource (creates a job for a customer) and states the resulting state (starts as Unassigned, Tradify assigns the next job number). It also positions itself against schedule_appointment, which books staff on the created job. The only weakness is the redundant first sentence overlapping with the third, and the cryptic reference to 'as New Job does.'

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the creation step that precedes schedule_appointment. There is no explicit 'use this when X, not Y' or exclusion such as 'do not use for existing jobs, use update_job_status instead,' so routing must be inferred from the sibling list.

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