trigger_scrub

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It declares write operation and low risk, and explains the effect (clears warning). However, it does not disclose idempotency, what happens if PG is already scrubbing, or any prerequisites like PG state. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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: a header line and two bullet-like parameter explanations. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 simple two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, effect, and parameter usage. It lacks details on return behavior or prerequisites, but overall is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: provides an example for pgid and explains the default for target. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's type constraints.

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 schedules a shallow scrub on a PG to clear a PG_NOT_SCRUBBED warning. It uses a specific verb ('schedule') and resource ('PG'), and the prefix '[WRITE][risk=low]' adds context. It is distinct from siblings like trigger_deep_scrub and scrub_status.

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 indicates use for clearing a PG_NOT_SCRUBBED warning with a shallow scrub. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough to guide selection among siblings like trigger_deep_scrub.

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