Run quick job

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals that the tool returns a created job for polling, implying an asynchronous workflow. However, it does not mention permissions, destructiveness, or rate limits. The behavioral context is adequate but not thorough.

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 with two sentences: one for purpose and one for pre/post steps. No filler, every sentence adds value.

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 covers the full workflow: how to prepare (list components), execute (run quick job), and follow up (poll and fetch output). It does not elaborate on error handling or optional parameters like variables, but the schema covers those. For a simple action tool, this is complete enough.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond referencing componentUid as coming from datto_list_components, which is already in the schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 runs a component as a quick job on a device. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning related tools for obtaining component UIDs and polling job results.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (running a component as a quick job) and gives sequential steps: find component UIDs with a specific sibling tool, then poll results with other sibling tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient.

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