create_job

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries the full burden. It discloses the employee limitation and describes the container semantics. However, for a creation/mutation tool, it doesn't disclose what happens on success, whether creation is idempotent, or what the output schema provides. Description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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?

Well-structured with a clear intro sentence, conceptual background in one sentence, and a clean Args block. Every sentence earns its place — the background explanation justifies the tool's existence, and the Args block covers all parameters. No verbosity or repetition.

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 4-parameter creation tool with an output schema and no annotations, this is quite complete. It documents all parameters, gives a motivating use case, and clarifies edge cases (employees not supported). Minor gaps: doesn't describe return-value semantics beyond what output schema presumably covers, and doesn't mention what happens with a duplicate job name. Given the output schema exists, the description is nearly complete.

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 the description must compensate fully. It does: owner_id (with example format '000001'), owner_type (customer/vendor, with explicit employee exclusion and reasoning), name (human-readable example), and reference (optional, with examples of PO number/project code). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema with no enum or description. All 4 parameters are documented.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Create a job for a customer or vendor.' It explains what a job is (groups invoices/bills under a project-level container) and distinguishes from siblings list_jobs/get_job/update_job which operate on existing jobs. The conceptual clarification about multiple engagements for one counterparty adds clear purpose context.

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?

Clear context: describes when jobs are useful (multiple distinct engagements per customer needing separate reporting). Specifically notes employees are not supported. However, it doesn't explicitly reference sibling tools like create_customer/create_vendor as prerequisites, nor explicitly say when NOT to use this tool. Lacks explicit alternative naming.

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