Invoke Create And Dispatch

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true. The description adds specific behavioral details: that it reserves credits and that idempotency ensures no duplicate jobs. This context goes beyond the annotations by explaining the 'money path' and the replay behavior. However, it does not disclose how to pass the idempotency key or what happens if it's missing.

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 a single, moderately long sentence that front-loads the main action. It is efficient but somewhat dense; breaking it into two sentences could improve readability without losing conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (combining create and dispatch, idempotency, credit reservation) and the minimal schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations and output details. While it covers behavioral aspects, it fails to provide enough context for an agent to correctly format the request.

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 the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention 'x-api-key' or 'body' at all, nor does it clarify how the idempotency key is provided. The description focuses solely on behavior, leaving the parameter semantics entirely undocumented.

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 tool creates and dispatches a processing job, using the verb-resource pair 'Create + dispatch'. It distinguishes by mentioning it's a 'money path' and idempotency behavior, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools 'processing.create' and 'processing.dispatch'.

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 provides clear guidance on idempotency behavior, explaining that retries with the same key replay the first response. However, it does not specify when to use this combined tool versus the separate create/dispatch tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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