job_assign

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the useful behavioral nuance that an existing assignment can be *moved*, but says nothing about what happens if the job is already running or what the prior host assignment becomes.

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 twelve-word sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient bordering on terse; nothing is wasted, though the brevity pushes remaining burden onto the caller.

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 an output schema, full annotation coverage and complete parameter docs, the description is serviceable but thin. It omits preconditions (job must be queued, host must be claimed) and does not mention that setting position reorders surrounding jobs, which matters for a scheduling tool.

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 100% and each parameter carries an example-bearing description, so the baseline is already met. The description adds a bit more by tying 'queue order' to the otherwise thin position parameter and framing assignment as movable.

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 concrete verb-and-resource pair: 'Set (or move) a queued job's host and queue order.' The 'queued' scoping separates it from job_start/job_cancel and the 'move' wording signals reassignment rather than creation. It stops short of naming a sibling to contrast with, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing at all; the only hint is the adjective 'queued.' Nothing tells the agent to prefer job_enqueue for new work or claim_host for host-side reservation, leaving differentiation to inference from the name alone.

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