ssh_job_start

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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses that the job survives network disconnects and MCP request timeouts, which is key behavioral context. But it omits how the started job is identified (job id) and what is required to manage it, leaving a meaningful gap for a job-lifecycle tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the core action and qualifies it with the timeout-immunity benefit. No filler, though it is dense parenthetical framing rather than cleanly separated clauses.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should tell the agent how to follow up (obtaining a job id to use with ssh_job_status/logs/kill). It captures the purpose and key resilience trait but stops short of the lifecycle context an agent needs to actually complete a background-job workflow.

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%, so all four parameters (command, cwd, env, connectionId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the concept of a long-running command and no format, precedence, or connection-fallback nuance beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb+resource (start long-running commands in the background, offline/daemonized on a remote host) and gives concrete examples (compilation, image build, backup). The 'long-running/background/offline' framing implicitly contrasts with ssh_exec, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied by 'long-running commands' and the timeout-immunity note, which is enough to signal this is for heavy jobs rather than quick commands. However, it never says when to prefer ssh_exec, nor does it mention the companion lifecycle tools (ssh_job_status, ssh_job_logs, ssh_job_kill) that an agent must use next.

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