jobd_preempt

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the key behavioral traits: sending SIGTERM with grace period, resulting state 'preempted', and conditions for refusal. This covers the core safety and mutability aspects.

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 concise sentences that front-load the action and immediate behavior, with no redundant information. Every word adds value.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides complete contextual information: what it does, how it behaves, and when it is not applicable. It is sufficient for correct agent decision-making.

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 only parameter (job_id) is not explicitly described in the text, but its purpose is implicitly clear from the tool's action. Schema coverage is 0%, but the description does not add explicit parameter details; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action (preempt), the target (running/assigned preemptible job), and the specific behavior (SIGTERM with grace, final state 'preempted'). It distinguishes from siblings like jobd_cancel by specifying the preemptible job constraint.

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?

Explicitly states when the tool is refused ('if not preemptible or not running'), providing clear usage context. However, it does not compare to alternatives (e.g., when to use jobd_cancel instead).

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