prepare_tool_job

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the agent already knows this mutates state in a non-idempotent, non-destructive way. The description adds useful context with 'copy inputs into a fresh job' and 'preview a verified converter command', but says nothing about permissions, what 'fresh job' means on repeat calls, or side effects.

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?

Two sentences, action first then the conditional constraint, with no filler. Slightly terse for a 4-parameter mutation tool, but every sentence earns its place.

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 non-idempotent write tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers the main action and one conditional requirement but omits the other three parameters and any detail on what the previewed command returns. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains input_root meaningfully in the XML repacking context, but leaves adapter, options, and input_path entirely undefined, so most parameters remain opaque.

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: copies inputs into a fresh job and previews a converter command. This is clearly a preparation step, distinguishable in spirit from run_tool_job/tool_job_status, but the description never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation rests on inference from the name.

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 gives one conditional prerequisite (XML repacking requires input_root with all sidecars), which is genuine usage guidance. It does not state when to call this versus run_tool_job, i.e. that this is the mandatory pre-step before execution, leaving the workflow position implied.

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