dts_create_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that job-file mode is "transcribed from the decompiled shell but has not been verified end-to-end," which is a significant reliability caveat. It also directs users away for production. However, it does not describe what happens on success (e.g., whether files are overwritten) or error behavior, so it's not fully transparent, but the added caveat is valuable.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second provides critical parameter details, and the third adds a necessary caveat and alternative. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains zero wasted words.

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 complexity of the tool (job file generation with many field names), the description adequately covers the key aspects: purpose, data_type, field naming, alternatives, and reliability. It lacks return-value details or failure behavior, but with no output schema and sparse parameter schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool effectively, especially with the pointer to dts_job_types for exhaustive fields.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `data_type` with an explicit list of valid values (Terrain, Osgb, MAX, BIM, LAS, Material, Vector, Sea, Skeletal, DTOModeData) and clarifies that field names are C# property names Engine expects, with examples (RoadShpPath, OutputPath). This gives substantial meaning beyond the bare schema. However, the `out` parameter is not explicitly described, leaving a small gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Write an .aconf job file, the input for Engine's -jsonPath mode." This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like dts_publish (production publishing) and dts_job_types (listing field names). The purpose is unambiguous and uniquely identifies the tool's role.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: "Prefer dts_publish for production work" gives a clear when-not-to-use alternative, and "call dts_job_types to list the known ones" directs to a complementary tool. It also warns that the mode is transcribed from decompiled shell and not verified end-to-end, implying caution. This exceeds simple context by naming specific alternatives and exclusions.

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