keep_fueled

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose key traits: the job persists until cancelled, consumes fuel from inventory, and replaces existing jobs. However, it leaves out failure modes, behavior when inventory is empty, and whether anything is lost when replacing jobs.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with 'Persistent job' and containing no filler. Both the core purpose and the important side effect are included efficiently.

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 job tool with four parameters, zero required, and three nullable with no schema descriptions, the description leaves important gaps: what omitted x/y/fuel mean, how to stop the job, and what happens on fuel shortage. An output schema may explain return values, but invocation semantics remain under-specified.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and no parameter descriptions. The description adds meaning by associating 'around a point' with x/y/radius and 'from your inventory' with the fuel parameter. It does not clarify the null defaults for x, y, and fuel, nor radius units or inclusivity.

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 names a specific continuous behavior ('keep burner machines around a point fuelled from your inventory until cancelled') and identifies it as a persistent job that replaces current jobs. It is clear and actionable, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling job tools like job_cancel or job_status.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is provided. 'Until cancelled' and 'replaces your current jobs' imply job semantics, but there is no mention of when to prefer this over insert_items, build_plan, or job_cancel, nor any prerequisites or cancellation instructions.

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