trigger_scrub

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does declare '[WRITE][risk=medium]', indicating it's a mutation with moderate risk, and mentions it clears a warning. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens if the scrub cannot be scheduled. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact: two lines for the main action and a concise arg list. It front-loads the write/risk indication and uses efficient phrasing. No filler. It loses a point because the arg list could be formatted with clearer separators, but overall it is appropriately concise.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the main usage and hints at prerequisites (check pg_summary/scrub_status). However, it omits return values, error conditions, and any idempotency or concurrency notes. An agent can probably call it correctly but may be uncertain about the response format.

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 is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains pgid with an example and source, and target with a clear instruction ('omit for the default'). This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the raw schema, though it could be slightly more detailed (e.g., format of target).

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 states a clear action ('Schedule a shallow scrub on a PG') with a specific resource (PG) and effect (clears PG_NOT_SCRUBBED warn). The word 'shallow' explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling trigger_deep_scrub, so an agent can differentiate without opening the schema.

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 gives some usage context, like where to obtain the pgid (from pg_summary / scrub_status) and that target can be omitted for the default. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over trigger_deep_scrub or when not to use it. The distinction is implied by the term 'shallow' but not spelled out as a guideline.

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