studio_create_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Durable' hints at persistence, but nothing is said about permissions, idempotency, name-uniqueness constraints, what happens if the host job already exists, or what state the job starts in.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the usage rule trailing. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

The output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations and three undocumented required parameters, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what to put in 'goal' or what guarantees 'durable' provides.

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 0%, so all three required parameters rely on the description, which explains none of them. 'Single-host' loosely implies the host parameter, but 'goal' and 'name' are entirely undefined — no format, no constraints, no examples (e.g., a natural-language objective vs. an enum).

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?

Names a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('durable single-host modeling job'), and 'single-host' implicitly contrasts with the multi-host planning siblings. It stops short of naming an actual sibling, but the resource is concrete enough to distinguish it.

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?

'Use one job per host in an interop plan' gives a cardinality rule that implies this tool is invoked repeatedly, once per host, after planning. It never states when to prefer this over studio_plan_workflow or studio_execute_action, nor any prerequisites such as requiring an existing plan.

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