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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the job's command executes on the server under its configured user, explaining the privilege/execution semantics and the 'WRITE' nature of the call.

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?

Three tight sentences plus the raw endpoint, front-loaded with the 'WRITE' marker so the mutating nature is visible immediately. No filler.

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 mutating tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, execution context, and id sourcing adequately. A note on what the call returns or how failures surface would close the remaining gap.

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% with both parameters documented (server_id points to runcloud_list_servers, cronjob_id to runcloud_list_cronjobs). The description reinforces the id-sourcing but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: force-run exactly one cron job of one server, right now, outside its schedule. It also names runcloud_list_cronjobs as the source of the job id, which cleanly separates it from that read-only sibling.

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 'once, right now, outside its schedule' framing tells the agent this is an immediate manual trigger rather than a scheduling operation, and it points to runcloud_list_cronjobs for the required id. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g. don't use for scheduling or bulk runs), but context is clear.

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