hydra_write_job

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the atomicity of the write (nothing is written if validation fails), the error-return behavior, and the fact that writing does not trigger execution. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and failure modes.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action and precondition, the second explains the failure mode and retry guidance, and the third clarifies a key boundary (no execution). It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains 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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema that presumably describes the return value. The description covers the key behavioral context: validation-before-write, atomic failure, and no execution. It does not explain what the output schema contains or what a successful write returns, but the output schema likely covers that. The main gap is the lack of parameter-level detail for job_path and transformations_yaml, but overall the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description explains that each manifest is passed as YAML text, which covers the general format of the YAML parameters (sources_yaml, destinations_yaml, pipeline_yaml, transformations_yaml). However, it does not explain the role of job_path or the optional transformations_yaml parameter, nor does it clarify the relationship between the four required manifests. The description adds some meaning but leaves gaps.

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 states a specific verb ('write'), a specific resource ('manifests of a job'), and a critical precondition ('AFTER validation'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like hydra_validate_job and hydra_run_job by stating that writing does not run the job and that validation must happen first. This is a clear, non-tautological definition.

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 explicitly says to call this tool after validation, and explains the failure behavior: if validation fails, nothing is written and errors are returned, so the agent should fix them and call again. It also clarifies that writing does not run the job, which helps the agent choose between this and hydra_run_job. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative validation tool or state when to use hydra_validate_job instead, so it falls just short of a 5.

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