Run a data processing job, step 2: start processing after uploading

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

Annotations say readOnly=false, idempotentHint=true, destructive=false. The description adds that it waits synchronously until job completion or failure, and implies potential timeout behavior. This is valuable context beyond annotations and does not contradict them.

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 concise sentences front-load the main action, with no redundant wording. The conditional polling advice is included without padding.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is thorough: it covers when to call, what happens (waits), timeout handling, and the alternative to polling. Annotated idempotence supports retry safety.

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 already describes all parameters with 100% coverage. The description references jobId from run_data_job and implies specName is tied to the job, adding workflow context that enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to start processing after uploading files from run_data_job and wait for completion or failure. It specifically distinguishes from siblings by referencing the previous step and alternative polling with get_status.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: after uploading files returned by run_data_job. Also gives guidance on what to do if it times out (poll with get_status instead of re-calling), providing a clear alternative.

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