skypilot_managed_job_launch

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that — spot/hardware failure recovery and the request_id return. It omits whether launch is asynchronous/blocking, which matters for a launch operation whose result is an ID.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action before optional-parameter notes. Minor tautology in 'Set pool to target a specific worker pool', otherwise efficient with no filler.

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?

Output schema exists so return value detail isn't required, annotations cover safety, and the description covers input shape, multi-doc groups, and the two key optional params. It doesn't connect request_id to the follow-up retrieval tools (skypilot_get_request, skypilot_stream_and_get) an agent would need next.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for three of four parameters: task_yaml accepts a YAML string (single or multi-document for job groups with parallel execution), pool targets a worker pool, num_jobs launches multiple copies. Only 'name' is left unexplained, and no format examples are given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Launch a managed job') plus a distinguishing behavioral trait (automatic recovery from spot preemptions/hardware failures). It separates this from skypilot_cluster_launch by virtue of 'managed job', but never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops 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?

It explains what the optional parameters do (pool targets a worker pool, num_jobs launches copies) which implies usage, but gives no when-to-use vs the sibling launch/queue tools and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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