jobd_preempt

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

With no annotations, this description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the worker side effect (SIGTERM with grace), the terminal state ('preempted'), and refusal conditions. There is a minor ambiguity between 'assigned' being preemptable and 'refused if not running', but overall the key behaviors are transparent.

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 entire description is one dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately follows with behavioral consequences and refusal criteria; every phrase earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential invocation context: what happens, what the final state is, and when the call fails. It does not describe the return payload, but given no output schema and simple side effects, the description 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the sole parameter job_id is a simple integer whose meaning is obvious from the description. The description adds semantic constraints on which job_ids are valid (preemptible, running/assigned), which is useful context beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Preempt') and a precise resource ('a running/assigned preemptible job'), and it names the distinguishing final state ('preempted'). It also implicitly differentiates from jobd_cancel by restricting preemption to preemptible jobs, so an agent can tell which sibling applies.

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?

It clearly states when the tool is valid ('running/assigned preemptible job') and when it will be refused ('if not preemptible or not running'). It does not explicitly name an alternative such as jobd_cancel for non-preemptible jobs, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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