execute_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'execute/restart' but does not specify whether the job's SQL is permanently updated, if the tool is destructive, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur. This leaves significant ambiguity for an action that likely modifies state.

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 a single sentence of 9 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. It achieves conciseness without redundancy, but the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail.

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 the absence of annotations and minimal schema coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain the return value (despite an output schema being present), side effects, or how the tool interacts with job state. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning beyond parameter names. It only states 'with new SQL', which hints at sql_query's purpose but does not elaborate on format, constraints, or examples. The job_id parameter receives no additional context beyond its name.

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 identifies the action as 'execute/restart' and the resource as 'specific SSB job with new SQL', clearly indicating what the tool does. However, the combined verb 'execute/restart' introduces ambiguity about whether it modifies the job permanently or just runs a one-off query, and it does not fully differentiate from sibling tools like restart_job_with_sampling.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as execute_query, restart_job_with_sampling, or stop_job. There are no contextual hints about prerequisites, limitations, or recommended scenarios.

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