fluig_job_run

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the job fires out-of-band from the cron schedule and gives specific tables to verify the effect, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about whether the call blocks until execution, side effects of the job itself, concurrent-run behavior, or permissions — significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the use case and the verification hint. No filler; the only mild redundancy is that the verification sentence reads like post-call guidance rather than selection guidance.

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 4-parameter trigger tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when it helps, and how to confirm success — enough to invoke it correctly. It is missing the async/sync and failure-mode details that would matter most when firing a real prod job.

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 100%, and the schema already documents env, confirm, jobId (from fluig_jobs_list) and jobType (jobTypeInt) in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Dispara um job agendado") plus the distinguishing scope ("sob demanda, sem esperar o cron"), which separates it from fluig_jobs_list / fluig_job_add / fluig_job_delete without naming them. The action is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly call out the sibling it is not.

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?

"Útil para validar um agendamento novo" gives a concrete use case that tells the agent when this tool is appropriate, and it hands over a post-condition to check (PREV_FIRE_TIME, LAST_REMOTE_SYNC). It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g., job already running, prod restrictions beyond the confirm flag).

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