steer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It details parameter mappings for each command but does not mention error states, side effects, or prerequisites (e.g., job must be running). This leaves some ambiguity about behavior in edge cases.

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 relatively concise, with the first sentence stating the purpose and the second covering parameter details. It could be slightly more compact, but it efficiently communicates essential information without unnecessary redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers core functionality and parameter relationships. However, it lacks details on return values, error handling, and prerequisites (e.g., job must be running, valid job ID). This leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's context.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining how 'command', 'value', and 'optimizer' parameters interact. It lists the specific values for 'command' and 'optimizer', and clarifies when 'value' is used. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal structure.

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: 'Steer a running job mid-flight.' This uses a specific verb (steer) and resource (running job), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_* and get_* which handle starting or retrieving job data.

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 by listing the valid commands and their associated parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or direct the user to alternative tools for other scenarios, missing exclusion guidance.

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