paperclip_invoke_heartbeat

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it creates a heartbeat run record, returns status, and handles conflicts (409). It also mentions prerequisites like wakeOnDemand config. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling). It is concise yet comprehensive, with no redundant sentences. Every sentence adds value for tool selection and invocation.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers when to use, error handling, return format, and prerequisites. This provides sufficient context for an AI agent to select and invoke 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 has 100% coverage with description 'Agent UUID' for agentId. Description repeats this and provides an example ('agt_abc123') but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 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's purpose: 'Manually trigger an on-demand heartbeat run for an agent.' It uses a specific verb ('trigger') and resource ('heartbeat run'), and differentiates from siblings like paperclip_wakeup_agent and paperclip_list_heartbeat_runs by specifying manual on-demand invocation.

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?

Includes explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use when' sections, directing to paperclip_update_agent for agents with heartbeat disabled, and paperclip_list_agents for validation. Error handling also suggests alternative tools (e.g., paperclip_list_agents for 404). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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