add_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It explains parameter-level behavior (e.g., destination reads from for prune/check, options are extra duplicacy CLI flags, parallel controls concurrency). It does not disclose error handling, idempotency, or return values, but the output schema covers some of that.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by a clean Args list where each parameter gets one line. Every sentence adds value, and the length is justified by the need to document 7 parameters with practical examples.

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 description fully covers all parameters, required vs optional fields, and provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly. With an output schema present, return values are handled separately, and the description leaves no meaningful ambiguity.

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%, and the description thoroughly compensates. Every parameter is explained with types, defaults, semantics, and concrete examples (e.g., '-threads 4', '-keep 0:30 -a', '-fossils'), including clarifications like source being empty for prune/check.

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 opens with 'Add a job (backup, prune, or check) to a schedule' — a clear, specific verb and resource. It also lists valid job types, and the sibling tool delete_job makes the add-vs-delete distinction obvious.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Add' and the context of schedules, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., delete_job, start_stop_schedule). No when-not-to-use or alternative tools are named.

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