create_client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals one key detail: app-created clients are auto-tagged with the app name in the lead source field. However, it does not mention idempotency, error handling, permissions, or what happens on duplicate input. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 brief (two sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a critical behavioral note. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description omits parameter details and behavioral context (e.g., uniqueness constraints, error handling). For a tool with 5 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete and insufficient for an agent to use it reliably.

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%, placing full burden on the description to clarify parameters. The description provides no information about any of the five parameters (e.g., required first_name/last_name, optional email/phone/company_name). The schema property names are self-explanatory, but no added value is given.

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 tool's function: 'Create a new client (homeowner / business).' It specifies the resource (client) and action (create), and the parenthetical distinguishes client types. Among siblings, only this tool creates clients, so it effectively differentiates itself.

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 when to use this tool: to create a new client/lead in Jobber, noting that it's the only way leads enter via integration. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context is clear for a creation tool among listing and note tools.

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