run_schedule_now

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it discloses that the operation executes the job outside its normal interval, records the run, and returns success=false unless confirm=true — making clear that an unconfirmed call is a harmless no-op. Minor gaps remain (no mention of rate limits, sync/async execution), but the key behavioral risks are covered.

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 opening two paragraphs are tight, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. However, the Args section duplicates the schema descriptions for both parameters almost word-for-word, wasting close to half the description on content the agent already has in the schema; trimming that redundancy would lift this to a 5.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the essentials: purpose, confirm precondition, return behavior (success=false without confirm), side effect (records the run), and where to inspect results via list_job_runs. The only notable gap is whether the run executes synchronously or is queued, but overall an agent has what it needs to invoke this correctly.

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 both schedule_id and confirm are already fully documented in the input schema. The Args section closely repeats that same schema text, adding no new meaning beyond what structured data provides — placing it at the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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-resource pair — 'Run one allowlisted schedule immediately' — with scoping words 'one' and 'allowlisted' that distinguish it from bulk or configuration-level operations. It further differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly naming set_schedule_enabled (disables auto-runs) and list_job_runs (inspects outcomes), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Provides explicit routing guidance: use list_job_runs to inspect the outcome and set_schedule_enabled to disable auto-runs, naming the exact sibling alternatives and their purpose. It also states the precondition that the schedule must be allowlisted and that confirm=true is required, so an agent knows when this tool is appropriate and what gating it must satisfy.

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