job_enable

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

The [WRITE] tag and description of clearing the disabled flag provide basic behavioral context. However, without annotations, it could disclose more about auth needs, side effects, or whether job must exist. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: one line for purpose, one line for inverse, and a bullet list for parameters. No redundant information, front-loaded with [WRITE] marker.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and only two simple parameters, the description covers the core function and parameter types. However, it omits return value, error conditions, prerequisite checks, and usage guidance relative to sibling tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by labeling job_id as 'Veeam job id' and target as 'Veeam target name from config'. This is helpful but minimal; no format or constraints beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Enable a backup job (clears the disabled flag)', providing a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly names its inverse 'job_disable', distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like job_start, job_retry, or job_disable. Only mentions the inverse, but lacks explicit context for selection.

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