mcp_run_cron

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether triggering a hook executes real side effects (emails, cleanup, external calls), what permissions are required, or what happens on an unknown hook name. The only behavioral signal is 'manually' versus scheduled execution.

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 short sentence with zero redundancy, which is structurally clean, but it is so terse that it reads as under-specification rather than efficient concision for a tool with side effects.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral detail, the definition is inadequate for a tool that executes site-side code paths on demand. An agent cannot tell what it will get back or whether invoking an unknown hook is safe.

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% — 'hook' is documented as the cron hook name and 'site' points to list_sites — so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional semantics such as expected hook naming format or where valid hook names can be discovered.

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 ('Manually trigger') and resource ('a cron hook'), which is enough to distinguish this from listing or scheduling cron events. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the obvious sibling mcp_get_cron_status, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as mcp_get_cron_status for inspecting cron state. The word 'Manually' weakly implies the tool is for on-demand runs rather than scheduled, but nothing tells the agent when this is appropriate or risky.

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