artwork_job_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: the job is persisted (state-creating side effect) and it does not execute anything yet (no immediate work). However it says nothing about permissions, provider/model requirements, whether persisted jobs must later be run/cancelled, or error behavior.

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 front-loaded and no filler. The one weakness is that its brevity comes partly from omitting needed detail rather than from disciplined editing.

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 returns, but with 5 params at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the definition is too thin for a state-persisting creation tool. It omits parameter meaning and the lifecycle context (that persisted jobs are later run/paused/cancelled).

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% across 5 parameters, so the description should compensate and does not. It never mentions prompt, mode, model, provider, or session_id, nor how the provider/model defaults interact with the AI generation step.

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 has a specific verb (create/persist), a specific resource (AI-to-GIMP artwork job), and the qualifier 'without running it yet' which meaningfully separates it from artwork_job_run. It is clear and differentiated, though it doesn't fully flesh out what an 'artwork job' entails.

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?

'Without running it yet' implies the workflow relationship with artwork_job_run, but the description never states explicitly when to prefer this over artwork_job_run or the other artwork_job_* siblings (run/pause/resume/cancel). Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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