job_disable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write nature via '[WRITE]', the effect on scheduled runs, and the dry_run preview option. It does not mention permissions, reversibility beyond the inverse hint, or side effects on currently running jobs, leaving some gaps.

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 and well-structured: action, inverse, dry_run tip, then a parameter list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or 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 simple tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. It lacks return value details and error conditions, which are relevant but not critical for a disable action.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter: job_id as Veeam job id, dry_run as preview behavior, and target as Veeam target name from config. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema, though target could be more precise.

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 action 'Disable a backup job' with the effect 'skips scheduled runs', and differentiates from sibling tools by noting 'Inverse: job_enable'. This provides a specific verb+resource+outcome.

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 clear context for use (disabling scheduled runs) and references the inverse tool job_enable, which helps distinguish from alternatives. However, it does not explicitly exclude job_stop or other related tools, so it falls short of a full when-to-use/not guide.

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