cleanuparr_start_job

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not explain what starting a job entails, whether it is reversible, or what side effects might occur. It neither contradicts the annotation nor enriches it with useful details.

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 with no wasted words, which is efficient. However, it lacks structural front-loading of key information and could have used the space to explain more about the schedule DTO or job_type. It is concise but under-informative.

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 tool with two required parameters, one a nested object, and a destructive hint, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values (though an output schema exists), side effects, or any operational context. The agent likely needs more detail to use this correctly.

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 must compensate. It provides some meaning for the 'schedule' parameter by mentioning the JobSchedule DTO, but the 'job_type' parameter is completely unexplained. No valid values, formats, or examples are given, leaving the agent to guess.

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 clearly states the tool's function: starting a job with a schedule object. It uses a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('job'), and the mention of 'schedule object' distinguishes it from sibling tools like trigger_job that may not require a schedule. However, it does not define what 'start' implies compared to 'trigger' or list other differentiators.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cleanuparr_trigger_job or cleanuparr_update_job_schedule. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear decision-making support.

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