create_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states that the tool returns a job event ID and timestamp, implying it creates a record without destructive side effects. However, it does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects beyond creation, leaving some gaps.

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?

Two concise sentences: first delivers purpose and return, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words; front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description provides return values. For a straightforward submission tool with 100% schema parameter coverage, it covers purpose, returns, and sibling differentiation. Could include more behavioral details (e.g., side effects), but is largely adequate.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for the 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond restating defaults (capability and kind_offset) and does not explain NIP-90 specifics. Schema already covers meaning adequately.

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 ('submit a targeted job request'), the resource ('elisym agent marketplace (NIP-90)'), and the return values ('job event ID and timestamp'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'submit_and_pay_job' by mentioning an alternative.

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 explicitly tells when to use an alternative ('Use submit_and_pay_job for auto-payment'), implying this tool is for non-auto-payment scenarios. This provides clear context and helps the agent decide between related tools.

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