new_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that a folder is created with today's date prefix and that profiles default to PrusaSlicer's current selections, but it omits what happens to an already-open job, permission requirements, and other side effects.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact Args documentation. The docstring formatting is slightly verbose but every sentence adds 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 a job-creation tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose and all parameters reasonably well, and the presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. It still lacks context about how the new open job interacts with existing state and error conditions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it largely does: name is explained with an example and folder-date behavior, while print_profile and filament note 'bed-1' scope and PrusaSlicer defaults. Only valid-value formats and the relationship to list_profiles remain 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?

States a specific verb+resource: starting a new print job with one empty bed and making it the open job. This clearly implies distinction from open_job (which opens an existing job) and get_job, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose statement: create a new job that becomes active. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over open_job, no prerequisites beyond 'one empty bed', and no exclusions for existing open jobs.

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