job_enable

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds real context by explaining the state change ('clears the disabled flag') and the dry_run preview. However it never explains why the operation is marked destructive (e.g., enabling triggers scheduled backups) nor the non-idempotent behavior, leaving notable behavioral 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?

Front-loaded with the [WRITE] tag and core action, then inverse, then preview hint, then args. Efficient and scannable with no filler, though the Args block slightly duplicates the schema titles.

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?

No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all three parameters plus the key behavioral trait are covered. A mutation tool with annotation coverage is adequately described, with only minor gaps around error/already-enabled handling.

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 must carry the burden, and it does: job_id (Veeam job id), dry_run (preview without enabling), and target (Veeam target name from config) are all documented. The explanations are terse but sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the exact verb and resource ('Enable a backup job') and clarifies the mechanism ('clears the disabled flag'). It also names the inverse sibling job_disable, letting an agent distinguish it from job_disable without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the inverse tool (job_disable) and points to dry_run=True for preview before committing. This gives clear routing and safety guidance, though it doesn't spell out preconditions (e.g., job already enabled, required config state).

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