studio_reconcile_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this records a claim, is not a rollback or independent idle detector, and enables new actions, but it leaves out details about mutation effects, permissions, expected_revision conflict behavior, and idempotency.

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?

The description is short, front-loaded, and each sentence adds useful information. It moves from purpose to preconditions to limitations without waste.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a no-annotation tool with four fully required and undocumented inputs, the description covers the safety narrative but not enough parameter semantics to reliably call it, especially for expected_revision.

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 0%, so the description must explain all four required parameters. It gives an important semantic warning only for host_is_idle, but job_id, notes, and especially expected_revision are left unexplained.

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 action: recording a trusted operator inspection after an interruption so new actions can proceed. It distinguishes itself from rollback and idle-detection behavior, though it does not explicitly name or compare itself to sibling tools such as studio_recovery_report.

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 gives clear preconditions: inspect the native host and output files and confirm the previous process stopped. It also warns that host_is_idle must not be inferred from the bridge lock alone, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer them.

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