fail_nks_generation_job

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the state transition: the leased job returns to pending or is quarantined after the retry limit. It also clarifies a side-effect boundary by saying preset lifecycle is unaffected. It does not specify permissions or exact retry behavior, but the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and purposeful. The first states the action and state outcomes; the second clarifies an important scope boundary without unnecessary detail.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation tool with full parameter documentation and no output schema, the description gives enough outcome and scope information to invoke it correctly. It could be slightly stronger by mentioning error conditions or what a return value would contain, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the three parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the high coverage and yields the baseline score.

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: 'Record a worker failure and return the leased NKS job to pending, or quarantine it after the retry limit.' It also explicitly bounds the scope with 'Does not change preset lifecycle,' helping distinguish it from sibling NKS job tools and preset lifecycle operations.

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 phrase 'Record a worker failure' clearly signals the usage context, and the retry-limit outcome describes what happens afterward. However, it does not explicitly name when to choose this over siblings like complete_nks_generation_job or heartbeat_nks_generation_job, so a small routing gap remains.

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