create_compile

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=false, indicating it's non-destructive. The description adds that it's asynchronous, which is valuable context not in annotations. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'compile job' entails beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently includes the asynchronous nature and project scope.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and non-destructive annotations, the description covers the basic action and async behavior. However, with 0% schema coverage and no usage guidance, it leaves gaps in parameter understanding and tool selection context.

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%, with one parameter ('model' containing 'projectId') undocumented in schema. The description mentions 'for a project' but doesn't explain what 'projectId' represents or how to obtain it, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('create a compile job request') and resource ('for a project'), and specifies it's asynchronous. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'create_backtest' or 'create_optimization' which might also involve project processing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'check_syntax' or 'create_backtest', the description doesn't indicate if this should precede or follow those operations, or what specific compile scenarios it addresses.

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