tigergraph__create_loading_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It mentions that the job can be run immediately and dropped after execution, which are key side effects. However, it does not describe error conditions, whether an existing job with the same name is overwritten, or any authentication or validation behavior. This is sufficient but not comprehensive.

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, consisting of three sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, key configuration elements, and optional execution behavior. It front-loads the primary action and avoids redundant or extraneous information.

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 (a nested configuration with multiple optional parameters), the description provides sufficient context without needing to recite every field—the schema already covers individual parameters at 100% coverage. It captures the essence of the tool, including the optional execution flags, and is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use it, though it could have briefly mentioned error or preexisting-job behavior.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the individual field descriptions by summarizing the overall configuration structure (file alias, separator, header, EOL, mappings) and clarifying what node and edge mappings accomplish. It also highlights the optional run_job and drop_after_run parameters. This goes beyond the baseline schema coverage (100% per context), providing a helpful high-level semantic layer.

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 primary action ('Create a loading job from structured configuration') with a specific verb and resource. It also outlines the job's purpose (loading data into vertices and edges) and distinguishes itself from related tools like run_loading_job_with_file or run_loading_job_with_data by focusing on creation rather than execution.

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 an implied usage context—use this tool when you need to define a loading job from configuration—but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives (e.g., when to use run_loading_job_with_file instead) or state when not to use this tool. The mention of optional immediate execution and dropping gives some behavioral guidance, but it lacks explicit selection criteria.

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