Complete a job (record actuals)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool computes wages, cost, profit, margin, and verdict, and feeds the P&L. However, it does not specify side effects like status changes or idempotency, which are relevant for a completion 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds computational context and workflow guidance. No wasted words.

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 6 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains the process and outcomes. It lacks details on prerequisites or error handling, but it is fairly complete for the complexity level.

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 coverage is only 17%, so the description should compensate. It lists 'hours, crew size, materials, fuel' as the parameters but does not detail them individually (e.g., units, constraints). Revenue is mentioned but not explained in the description (schema has a description for it). JobId is omitted entirely. The description adds some but not enough context.

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 verb 'Close out a job' and specifies the resource (job) with the real numbers used. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the follow-up steps (pricing_record_outcome, invoice_create), which are separate tools.

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 says when to use this tool (to close out a job with real numbers) and provides follow-up actions. It does not list alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling list suggests no other tool serves the same purpose.

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