promote_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the action is destructive, idempotent, or requires specific permissions. The single sentence offers no visibility into side effects or state changes.

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 extremely concise (one sentence, no extra words). It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity, which is acceptable for a simple tool but limits its utility.

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?

Given the tool has only two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain the outcome of promotion (e.g., where the job moves). It fails to complete the mental model for the agent, leaving ambiguity about the tool's effect.

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?

Both parameters are documented in the schema with clear descriptions (Job ID, Queue name), and schema coverage is 100%. However, the description adds no additional meaning or context for how these parameters are used or their 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?

The description states the action ('Promote') and resource ('a delayed job'), but the term 'promote' is vague and not clearly defined. It could mean moving the job to an active queue or changing its priority, which diminishes clarity. It does distinguish from siblings like 'retry_job' or 'get_job' but lacks specificity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'retry_job' or 'add_job'. The description does not provide context for typical scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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