prepare_job_allocation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the 'never mix service types' constraint and the merge behavior, but does not clarify what 'prepare' actually does (e.g., whether it creates a draft action) or address the openWorldHint annotation. This is comparable to the get_calls calibration example where annotations cover safety and the description adds scoping details.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a critical constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no filler 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?

With 9 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, and zero parameter description coverage, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the role of theme, invoice_key, approve_invoice, confirm_ambiguous_remaining, or the relationship between months and jobs. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional 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% for top-level parameters, and the description only vaguely references 'months' and 'jobs'. It provides no details about client_id, service_line, invoice_type, approve_invoice, confirm_ambiguous_remaining, theme, or invoice_key. Even the $defs descriptions are part of the schema, not the tool description, and the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Prepare' with a clear object 'one complete service-type allocation' and adds the action 'Merge that service's months/jobs'. The constraint 'never mix service types' distinguishes it from sibling tools like prepare_interim_split and prepare_direct_invoice, making its unique scope obvious.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to prepare an allocation for a single service type, merging that service's months and jobs. The 'never mix service types' rule provides a strong usage boundary, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when not to use it, though the sibling tool list gives context.

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