tigergraph__run_loading_job_with_data

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

The description only says data is 'posted and loaded', implying a write operation, but it omits potential side effects like graph modification or the requirement that the loading job and file tag already exist. No annotations are provided, so the description itself should disclose more behavior, such as failure modes or the need for a valid job definition.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that directly state the action and mechanism. There is no superfluous information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 has 9 parameters and 3 required ones, the description is too minimal to provide sufficient context. It does not explain dependencies (e.g., needing a pre-created loading job), how inline data relates to the file tag, or when to use this instead of other loading options. This leaves the agent with gaps in understanding the overall workflow.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the description text adds no extra meaning. The parameters like 'file_tag', 'separator', and 'size_limit' are already well explained in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 executes a loading job with inline data, which is distinct from the sibling tool that uses a file. The phrase 'inline data string' precisely identifies the input method, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the file-based alternative (run_loading_job_with_file). The description does not mention any prerequisites, such as having an existing loading job, nor does it suggest checking for other tools. This leaves the agent without decision support.

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