job_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs as an async session, has an inverse relation, and supports dry-run preview. It doesn't cover failure modes or return values, but the async and polling notes are significant behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place: async note, inverse, polling guidance, and dry-run preview. The Args section is clean and directly follows the behavioral notes.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: start behavior, async execution, polling with session tools, and dry-run. It could mention what a successful start returns, but the session polling reference implies session handling, which is sufficient.

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%, so the description compensates by giving one-line semantics for each parameter: job_id as 'Veeam job id', dry_run as 'preview without starting', and target as 'Veeam target name from config'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 immediately states '[WRITE] Start a backup job' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting 'Inverse: job_stop' and mentions async session, which differentiates from other job-related commands.

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 explicit guidance: 'Inverse: job_stop' names an alternative, and 'Poll progress with session_list / session_get; do not re-issue' provides a clear exclusion (don't re-issue). It also explains the dry_run preview option as a conditional usage.

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