job_disable

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real value beyond them: the '[WRITE]' tag, the explanation that disabling skips scheduled runs, and the dry_run preview affordance. It still doesn't spell out whether the job must be stopped first or confirm reversibility beyond naming job_enable.

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?

Front-loaded with the '[WRITE]' tag and core purpose, with a tidy Args block. Slight redundancy in stating the dry_run behavior twice (once inline, once in Args), but nothing wasteful otherwise.

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 three-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, inverse, preview mode, and every parameter. It is essentially complete, missing only edge-case behavior such as what happens on an already-disabled job.

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 carries the full burden and documents all three parameters (job_id as Veeam job id, dry_run semantics, target from config). This compensates well for the empty schema, though it adds no format/validation detail for job_id.

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 precise verb+resource ('Disable a backup job') and clarifies the consequence ('skips scheduled runs'). It also names its inverse (job_enable), so an agent can distinguish it from job_stop/job_start/job_enable 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?

Gives the inverse relationship with job_enable and the dry_run preview workflow, which supplies clear usage context. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives rule (e.g. disable vs stop), so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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