ecount_create_job_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the rate limit (10 seconds per request) and the response structure (success/failed counts, slip numbers, details array with error info). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not elaborate on partial failure handling or authorization requirements.

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 concise and structured, starting with the core purpose, then adding parameter notes, and ending with rate limit and response format. Every sentence provides useful information, with no fluff. It is slightly longer than the two-sentence ideal but remains efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (many object parameters) and lack of output schema, the description compensates by including the response format and rate limit. It does not repeat the detailed schema descriptions, which is appropriate. The combination of schema and description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior, though it omits some edge-case information like the 300-item limit (which the schema covers).

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds only a brief mention that PROD_CD is required and that quantity/due date/BOM version can be specified, which does not meaningfully go beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 with a specific verb ('작업지시서 입력' / register production plan) and identifies the resource (work order in ECOUNT). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ecount_create_sale_order or ecount_create_goods_issued by explicitly focusing on job orders (생산 계획).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to register a production plan or enter a work order in ECOUNT. It also mentions which fields can be specified (quantity, due date, BOM version), but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among siblings.

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