new_job_template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context an agent needs: this is a starting template meant to be edited, not a finalized config, and its sibling guidance implies the model-specific tuning is the caller's job. Output schema exists, so no credit is needed for return format.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the fallback guidance is demoted to a trailing clause. Nothing here restates the name or title.

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 no-arg, read-only generator with a declared output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the YAML represents, which model it targets, and where to go when the default doesn't apply.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals the tool is argument-free, as the interesting content comes back in the response rather than being configured on input.

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 first sentence names the exact artifact returned: the UI's default job config (Flex.1 LoRA) serialized as YAML. It is immediately distinguishable from get_job_config (existing job's config) and create_job (the consumer of this output).

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 gives the positive path (edit this YAML and pass it to create_job) and an explicit alternative for cases it does not fit: clone a previous job via create_job(base_job=...) for other models, or read config/examples/*.yaml. That is a concrete when/when-not with named alternatives.

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