seerr_run_job

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

The description explicitly says 'WRITE: this modifies your Seerr instance,' which reinforces the readOnlyHint=false annotation and adds the context that running a job has side effects. However, it does not elaborate on what kind of modifications occur or whether the job is synchronous, so the added transparency is minimal.

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, efficiently worded sentence. It is front-loaded with the action ('Invoke a specific job') and the important qualifier (WRITE). No wasted words, though it could arguably be slightly more descriptive without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema, but for a mutation tool, the description should explain how to obtain a job_id and what side effects are expected (e.g., running a scheduled job immediately). The current description is too sparse to fully understand the tool's role within the job management workflow, especially given the related schedule/cancel tools.

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 sole parameter 'job_id' is not explained in the description. With 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify where job_id comes from (e.g., from seerr_list_settings_jobs) and what format it uses, but it only reuses the parameter name indirectly via 'specific job'. This leaves the agent guessing.

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 'invokes a specific job' and flags it as a WRITE operation, which distinguishes it from read-only tools. It does not name sibling alternatives like seerr_schedule_job or seerr_cancel_job, so it falls short of a 5.

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 given on when to use this tool versus seerr_schedule_job or seerr_cancel_job. The description does not mention preconditions, alternatives, or the typical workflow, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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