Send a job to Claude Code

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the call returns a job id, that execution is asynchronous with pickup 'within seconds while it is awake,' and that instructions are the sole channel to the executing agent. One nuance is left ambiguous: the description calls the job 'read-only' while readOnlyHint is false, which an agent could misread as the tool itself not mutating state.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the key authoring constraint, then the return and timing facts. Every sentence carries information; only the 'while it is awake' clause is slightly compressed rather than wasteful.

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 a simple three-parameter asynchronous submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, how to author the input, what it returns, and the latency condition. It stops short of explaining what happens to a queued job while the Mac is asleep or how results are later retrieved.

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%, so the schema already defines title, workspace, and instructions. The description's 'complete brief: Claude Code sees only this text' reinforces the instructions parameter's intent but largely restates the schema's 'The full brief' wording, adding little new syntax or constraint detail.

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 and resource: 'Queue a read-only job for Claude Code on the user's Mac,' which is distinguishable from send_message and post_report siblings. It never names a sibling alternative explicitly, so differentiation is by implication rather than by direct contrast.

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 the working notes ('Write the instructions as a complete brief: Claude Code sees only this text') and the timing note, which tell an agent how to compose the call. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_job/list_jobs/cancel_job guidance and no statement of preconditions or exclusions.

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