inject_io_staging

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that with 'Rend le script modifie sans rien ecrire' plus the follow-up step (you must re-read and submit it yourself). This is useful non-obvious behavioral context; it stops short of covering failure modes or what 'mise en cache' injects exactly.

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?

Three tight sentences with the action first, the no-write caveat second, and the alternative routing last. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, side-effect behavior, and alternatives. The only shortfall is the undocumented 'variable' parameter, which is minor against the rest of the coverage.

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% for all three parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It obliquely covers 'script' (existing sbatch script) and 'dataset_archive' (the dataset), but the 'variable' parameter and its DATASET_DIR default are never mentioned, leaving a real gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: injecting in-memory dataset caching into an existing sbatch script that this server did not generate. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_job(stage_archive=...), so an agent can route correctly 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?

Gives both the when ('un script sbatch existant, que ce serveur n'a pas genere') and the when-not with a named alternative ('Pour un job cree ici, prefere submit_job(stage_archive=...)'). It also states the post-call obligation (re-read then deposit the script), leaving nothing to inference.

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