Start Hermes skill eval job

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

With annotations present (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds useful behavioral context about what it does NOT do ('without writing the skill file') and the 'dry/live-gated' and 'bounded' nature. However, it doesn't disclose detail about output/return behavior, error conditions, or side effects of starting an eval job.

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 dense sentence that packs several key semantic points (validation step, read boundary, dry/live gating, no file write). It's efficient and front-loaded with the purpose. No wasted words, though the density does trade off some clarity.

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 tool has 14 parameters, an output schema, and only 2 required fields, with no annotation support (no idempotent/destructive/read-only hints that would help the agent). The description covers the core intent but leaves critical questions unanswered: what does the output contain, how does 'bounded' map to timeout_seconds, what happens with live_eval=true, and how it relates to the other eval-related sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for 14 parameters, but it explains none of them. Terms like 'bounded' and 'dry/live-gated' hint at live_eval and timeout_seconds, but no parameter is explicitly mapped or documented beyond the schema defaults. With 14 params and 0% coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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 clear verb sequence: 'Validate a skill id/read boundary, then start a bounded dry/live-gated eval job without writing the skill file.' This clearly identifies the resource (skill eval job) and action (validate + start). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like hermes_eval_start, hermes_eval_run, or hermes_api_jobs_create which appear related.

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 says it validates a skill id/read boundary and starts a 'bounded dry/live-gated' eval job, which conveys some context about when to use it. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no exclusions, and doesn't clarify when this tool should be chosen over the closely-named siblings hermes_eval_start or hermes_eval_run.

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