pbs_job_run

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses mutation nature, async behavior, dry-run default, confirm requirement, config dependency, and potential snapshot deletion for prune. Lacks details on error states or if job doesn't exist, but covers critical behavioral traits.

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 paragraph of four sentences, efficiently delivering key information without fluff. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters), but it remains concise and readable.

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 the output schema exists (returns UPID), the description need not detail return values. It covers input semantics, behavioral aspects, and preconditions. It does not explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools or mention error handling, but for a mutation tool with async nature, it is reasonably complete.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value: it lists valid job_type values (sync|verify|prune) and explains confirm default and behavior. job_id is implied but not elaborated; proximo_target is described in schema. Given low coverage, description compensates well.

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 'trigger a PBS scheduled job immediately' and lists the specific job types (sync|verify|prune), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pbs_job_create (which creates schedules) and pbs_jobs_list.

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 explicit usage context: dry-run by default, confirm=True to execute, async with UPID return, and configuration requirements (PROXIMO_PBS_*). It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is clear for an informed agent.

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