Run Hermes scheduled job now

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and idempotentHint=false. The description adds context that this is out-of-schedule triggering and that 'redacted receipts' are written as a side effect, which is useful behavioral disclosure. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, failure modes, or what happens if the job is already running. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description adds a modest amount beyond 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?

The description is a single efficient sentence that packs in the endpoint, the verb, the out-of-schedule aspect, and the redacted-receipts side effect. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the key action (triggers a scheduled cron job to run immediately). Could mention one more behavioral aspect, but length is appropriate.

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 100% schema coverage, a single documented parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering the write/non-idempotent nature, the description needs to add only the out-of-schedule triggering semantics and the redacted-receipts side effect, which it does. This is reasonably complete for a simple trigger action. Slightly more usage context would push it higher, but overall adequate.

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%, with a single parameter 'job_id' described as 'Unique job identifier.' The description's mention of 'writing redacted receipts' is a side effect, not a parameter. The description doesn't add parameter detail, but with only one fully-documented parameter, the schema carries the load appropriately. Baseline 3 is correct.

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+resource ('triggers a scheduled Hermes cron job to run immediately, out of schedule') with the endpoint path (POST /api/jobs/{job_id}/run). It's clear about what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like hermes_job_status, hermes_job_cancel, hermes_api_jobs_pause/resume, but the verb 'run' plus 'out of schedule' does separate it reasonably from other job-management tools.

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 description mentions this is for running a job 'out of schedule' and triggering it immediately, which implies usage context ('when you want to trigger now rather than wait for schedule'). However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no note about prerequisites (e.g., whether the job must exist or be paused). For a job-management tool with many siblings (pause, resume, cancel, status, create, update), guidance on when to use this over alternatives is notably absent.

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