create_job

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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry the behavioral load; it offers nothing about permissions, whether creation is idempotent, what happens when a job with the same name exists, or what the response contains. The phrase "confirmed live" is meta-commentary about verification status, not behavior the invoking agent can act on.

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?

It is short with no filler sentences, but the content leans on an endpoint reference and a truncated body snippet rather than front-loading the useful information. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight 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?

For a 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is far too thin — it omits the two structural shapes of the request (simple asset_ref vs rich asset_ref_type) that the schema hints at, and says nothing about results or failure modes.

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 57%, and the description mentions only that project_id travels in the query string and the body is wrapped in {"job": {...}}. Parameters such as name, project_id itself, and description have no description text and get no help here, so the description does not compensate for the coverage 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 only restates the tool as an HTTP wrapper ("Wraps POST /v2/jobs?project_id=...") rather than saying what the tool does for the caller (create a scheduled/executable job in a project). It gives no differentiation from siblings like create_job_run, create_asset, or update_job — the agent must infer everything from the name and the POST verb.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_job_run (to run it) or create_asset (to create the underlying script/notebook). The agent gets no signal about ordering or exclusions.

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