create_system_jobs

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

Annotations already mark the operation as idempotent, non-destructive, and non-read-only. The description adds the specific queue-manipulation semantics and the POST endpoint, which helps clarify what the tool does. It does not contradict the annotations and adds modest behavioral context beyond them.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core operation, followed by the endpoint and argument list. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema. The phrasing 'Job ID act onto' is slightly awkward but not harmful.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: the endpoint, the target job ID, and the permitted actions. It does not explain whether move_top also force-starts the job or clarify prerequisites, but the core calling context is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does identify 'id' as the job ID to act on and 'action' as one of three specific values, which is minimally sufficient. It does not elaborate on side effects or distinguish consequences of each action, leaving some semantic burden unmet.

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 clearly states the operations: force start, move to top, or move to bottom of the queue for a specific job. It clarifies the otherwise misleading 'create' name by indicating these are actions on existing jobs rather than creation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like patch_system_jobs, but its own purpose is unmistakable.

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 action list implies the intended use: queue control operations on existing jobs. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives such as patch_system_jobs for modifying job settings or list_system_jobs for viewing jobs.

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