enable_feed_auto_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool enables automatic scheduling, mentions the scheduler runs hourly, specifies the default interval (7 days), and describes the purpose ('keeping job feeds updated without manual intervention'). However, it doesn't cover potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the feed doesn't exist.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose and key behavioral details (scheduler frequency, default interval), and the second provides usage context. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse.

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 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it explains what the tool does, why to use it, and key behavioral aspects. However, it doesn't mention what the tool returns (success/failure indicators) or error handling, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'weekly runs' and 'configured interval' which aligns with the schema's 'intervalDays' parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context or usage examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Enable automatic weekly runs') on a specific resource ('for a feed'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'disable_feed_auto_run' (opposite action) and 'trigger_feed_run' (manual vs. automatic). The verb 'enable' is precise and the resource 'feed' is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Great for keeping job feeds updated without manual intervention') and mentions the scheduler's hourly operation and default interval. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to alternatives like 'trigger_feed_run' for one-time execution.

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