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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new operational context: each invocation spawns an additional run with real side effects, and user confirmation is expected first. That is the key non-obvious behavior for a repeat-callable mutation. It does not describe failure modes or what the returned run looks like, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the caution. Every clause carries distinct information with no restatement of the name or title.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the schema fully documents the 5 parameters. The description covers the trigger semantics and the confirmation requirement. A minor gap is the absence of any guidance versus restart_workload or what to do if the run fails.

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 the schema already carries full parameter meaning, including the location/list_deployments cross-reference and containerOverrides shape. The description adds nothing about parameters. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 and resource: 'Trigger an immediate run of a cron workload'. An agent can immediately tell this is an out-of-band execution trigger rather than a schedule edit. It does not explicitly contrast with close siblings such as restart_workload or deploy_app, which keeps it from 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 concrete use conditions: 'when the schedule is suspended or you need an out-of-band execution'. It also adds a prerequisite ('confirm with the user'). No explicit exclusion or named alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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