parse_run_job

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

The description discloses a key behavioral requirement ('Requiere master key'), which is valuable. However, it does not explain potential side effects, whether the job runs asynchronously, or what the return value is, leaving gaps given there are no annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, with two sentences that front-load the main action and include essential use cases and auth requirements. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 a nested parameter object and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks information about how to structure the 'inputSchema', what the job executes, and any return or error behavior, making it incomplete for safe usage.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It does not mention 'jobName' or 'params' at all, leaving the agent without guidance on how to invoke the job correctly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Ejecuta un Background Job') and identifies the resource (a scheduled task in Parse Server). It also gives examples of use cases ('tareas pesadas, limpiezas, reportes'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like parse_call_cloud_function.

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 specifies when to use the tool ('Útil para tareas pesadas, limpiezas, reportes, etc.') providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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