create_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that jobs fire HTTP requests on a schedule, that once schedules must be in the future, and that one-off jobs support the same retries, alerts, and logs. It omits permissions, idempotency, immediate activation behavior, duplicate-name handling, and response details, leaving significant mutation context uncovered.

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 purpose and then spends its length on schedule semantics, which are genuinely complex and useful. It is somewhat dense and paragraph-heavy, but the detail largely earns its place rather than being filler.

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 six top-level parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions. The description is complete for schedule configuration but incomplete for HTTP request configuration, retry policy, tagging, and general creation behavior, so an agent would still lack important guidance for correct invocation.

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 for all parameters. It explains schedule.type, schedule.expression, and schedule.timezone in depth, but does not describe name, tags, httpConfig.url, httpConfig.method, headers, body, timeoutMs, description, or retryPolicy fields, leaving most parameters semantically unexplained.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Create a new scheduled job — an HTTP request fired on a schedule." It distinguishes creating a new job from updating an existing one, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast 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?

Usage is implied by "Create a new scheduled job" and the description explains when to choose cron, interval, or once schedules. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use create_job versus update_job or other sibling tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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