postifys_cq_run_job_now

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the environment requirement and publish entitlement, and it scopes the action to the next eligible pending row. However, it does not describe side effects, idempotency, whether the run blocks, or what happens if no eligible row exists.

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?

Two sentences contain all essential information with no filler. The most important qualifiers (native scheduler, requirements, immediate trigger) are front-loaded, making the tool easy to scan and understand.

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 simple one-parameter trigger tool with no output schema, the description covers the main operational requirements and the action's scope. It could add error or response expectations, but the prerequisites and immediate behavior are sufficient for an agent to make a reasonable invocation decision.

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. It ties jobId to the job whose next pending row is triggered, but it does not explain where to obtain jobId, whether it comes from postifys_cq_list_jobs, or any additional constraints beyond the schema's minLength.

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 specific verb ('Trigger') and a precise resource ('the next eligible pending row for a job'), making the tool's action unmistakable. It also distinguishes this from sibling CQ tools by framing it as the immediate execution action rather than listing, creating, or importing jobs.

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 clearly sets prerequisites: CONTENT_QUEUE_ENABLED must be enabled and the caller needs publish entitlement. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context of 'run now' versus the rest of the CQ toolset makes the usage scenario clear enough.

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