create_generation_job

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: if execute=true and RAVEN_CREATIVE_RUNNER is configured, the job is submitted to that runner. It also tells the agent that a 'brand-aware provider payload' is returned, which is extra useful context.

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 concise: three sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide return type and conditional behavior. There is no fluff or redundant restating 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?

Given a large 15-parameter surface and no output schema, the description covers the main decision factors: what kind of jobs it supports, what it returns, and when an execution side effect occurs. It could still mention the exact shape of the returned payload or what happens when execute=false, but it is adequate for a capable agent to proceed.

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?

The schema already documents 100% of the 15 parameters, so the description doesn’t need to go through each one. It adds some context around media types and the execute/runner flow, but it does not introduce new meaning to individual fields.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a Raven creative generation job') and lists the covered media types (image, video, 3D, audio, campaign, analysis). It clearly separates from retrieval siblings like get_generation_job and list_generation_jobs, though it does not name alternatives.

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 implies usage when a new Raven generation job is needed and overlays the execute=true/RAVEN_CREATIVE_RUNNER condition. However, it does not explicitly provide when-to-prefer-this tool versus related siblings such as plan_creative_campaign, score_creative, or list_creative_presets.

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