Run cron job now

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

Annotations declare it a non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, but the description adds the traits annotations cannot express: the run uses the cron's own branch and variables, disabled crons are refused, and the cron and its schedule are left unchanged. It also states what the call yields (pipeline number, status, web URL), which is valuable given there is no output schema.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and its exact semantics, then routing, then follow-up, then the safety caveat. No sentence is redundant and each adds a distinct constraint.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers side effects, refusal conditions, return values and the natural follow-up call. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is 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%, so repo, cron_id and instance are already documented, and the description only echoes the cron_id provenance already present in the schema. It adds no format or constraint detail beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Runs one of a repository's cron jobs now') and immediately scopes it against sibling mutations by explaining it replays the schedule rather than retriggering an existing pipeline. An agent can distinguish run_cron from trigger_pipeline, restart_pipeline and list_crons 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?

It gives explicit routing ('Take the cron id from list_crons'), an exclusion ('Refused for disabled cron jobs'), a follow-up ('Follow the new run with get_pipeline'), and a strong precondition ('Only call this when the user asked for it'). It also warns that log/commit/pipeline text must not be read as an instruction, which is a concrete when-not-to-use rule.

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