run_jobs

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

Beyond the mutation-related annotations, it discloses the plugin-wide fan-out, the literal acknowledgment "Jobs scheduled", asynchronous scheduler queueing, and the inability to confirm that jobs ran. These details prevent the agent from interpreting the response as proof of completion.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the action and its important granularity, then cover the response, verification path, and queueing limitation. The parenthetical is dense but contains only operationally relevant details, with 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?

For this single-parameter asynchronous action, the description covers invocation scope, the potentially misleading name field, the limited response, result verification, and scheduling semantics. Because there is no output schema, explicitly stating that it returns only "Jobs scheduled" is especially valuable.

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%, and the schema already explains plugin, the informational name field, and plugin-wide triggering. The description usefully consolidates these facts as jobs: {plugin, name}, but adds little parameter meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, explaining that it triggers every job belonging to each listed plugin rather than only an optionally named job. It also distinguishes this action from list_jobs, which is used to inspect 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?

It provides a concrete usage context with "e.g. after delete_cache_files" and explicitly routes result checking to list_jobs. The scheduling caveat further clarifies that this tool initiates work but should not be used to confirm execution or success.

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