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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it requires the write scope, selects the newest proposed plan implicitly, and discloses the outcome ('deliverables still land as proposed drafts'), which clarifies it is not a publish/destructive step and is consistent with destructiveHint=false. It does not address idempotency or what happens if no plan is pending.

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 action is front-loaded in the first clause and the three sentences each carry a distinct fact (what, when, side effect/permission). The parenthetical framing about a headless caller is stylistically long but does add rationale without derailing.

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?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers trigger, required scope, and post-run state (deliverables remain drafts), which is what an agent needs to call it safely. Missing only edge-case behavior such as running when no plan is waiting or with an invalid/expired job id.

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 both parameters (id, budgetUsd) are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description implies the id targets a job whose newest plan is run, but says nothing about the budgetUsd parameter or how it interacts with the run.

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?

States a specific verb ('Press Run') on a specific resource ('the job's newest proposed plan'), so the agent knows exactly what action is taken and on which target. It does not name alternative siblings (e.g. jobs_continue, jobs_stop, posts_approve) to sharpen the boundary, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger condition: 'Use it after a turn ended with a plan waiting.' That is clear contextual guidance. It stops short of naming what to use instead when there is no pending plan (e.g. jobs_continue or jobs_get), so no explicit alternatives are provided.

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