Start a Phygital Brain job

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the tool mutates nothing itself (the agent must apply changes with its own file tools), repeat calls yield identical instructions, and an unknown job returns an error listing valid ones. Idempotency is partly restated from the annotation, but the error behavior and the 'you do the writes' division of labor are genuinely new information.

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 key fact (what you get back and that it changes nothing) is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct routing or error information. The trigger-phrase list is long, but it is functional rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return value (a text skill to follow), the error case, and the follow-up tool calls. For a single-parameter, zero-required tool this leaves nothing an agent needs missing.

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 100% and the enum values are already fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does add a little mapping value by tying natural-language triggers to job values (e.g. 'set up my team' implies 'setup'), but it adds no new syntax or constraints.

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 ('Start a Phygital Brain job') and immediately clarifies the actual return: step-by-step instructions as text. It also distinguishes itself from the two siblings by naming them and their roles, so an agent can tell the three apart without opening any 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 says to call it first and enumerates concrete user phrasings that should trigger it ('set up my second brain', 'switch my brain to another language', etc.). It also routes follow-up needs to the right siblings: phygital_brain_read_file for opening named files, phygital_brain_list_files for discovery.

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