tigergraph__create_loading_job

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the job can be run immediately and dropped, which is useful, but it does not mention side effects like overwriting existing jobs, required permissions, or failure behavior. This is a moderate disclosure for a creation 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 concise (5 sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. Each sentence adds relevant information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns or any prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing graph or schema). It also omits error conditions and the implications of the run_job/drop_after_run flags beyond their existence. For a tool with complex nested configuration, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds only a high-level summary of file config, node mappings, and edge mappings, which largely repeats the schema. It provides marginal value beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it creates a loading job and summarizes what the job does (loads data from files into vertices and edges). It distinguishes from siblings like run_loading_job_with_file and drop_loading_job by focusing on the creation aspect, though it doesn't explicitly name 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?

The description implies this tool is for creating (and optionally running) loading jobs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus other loading job tools. It does mention the run_job and drop_after_run options, which gives some guidance on optional behavior, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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