create_job

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, so a write operation is expected and the description's 'Create' is consistent. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema: it explains job semantics, the customer/vendor restriction, and the reason employees are unsupported. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then efficiently explains the domain concept and parameters. The Args block is structured and every sentence adds value; there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-value documentation is not required. The description covers the required parameters, optional reference, and domain constraints. It could add more about validation or what happens if owner_id does not exist, but the current information is sufficient for correct invocation in the expected 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%, so all parameter meaning falls on the description. It fully compensates by documenting owner_id, owner_type, name, and reference with examples and constraints, including the explicit allowed values 'customer'/'vendor' and the exclusion of employees.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a job for a customer or vendor.' It also defines a job as a project-level container grouping invoices or bills, giving the tool a clear domain meaning and distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_jobs, update_job, and delete_job.

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 gives concrete usage context: jobs are useful when a single customer has multiple distinct engagements that should be reported separately. It also explicitly excludes employees, stating they are not supported. It does not name an alternative sibling tool directly, but the create/update/list/delete family is clear enough from context.

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