Run a cron job now

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true, yet the description still adds substantial behavioral value: the schedule stays unchanged, the run counts as a cron event, and — going beyond the idempotentHint flag — 'a retry after a timeout starts a second one.' This gives the agent concrete, actionable understanding of the side effects it cannot infer from the annotations alone.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core action is front-loaded in sentence one, the use case and cron-event accounting anchor sentence two, and the retry consequence lands in sentence three. There is no filler or restatement of the title.

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 mutation with a full output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral surface: what starts, what stays unchanged, what side effects occur, and what retry means. The only minor gap is the absence of failure conditions (e.g., whether the cron must exist or be active), but the output schema and schema parameter docs cover the remainder.

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 the baseline of 3 applies even though the tool description adds no parameter-level guidance. The schema itself documents cron_id and repo_id adequately (including a lookup hint for repo_id), but the description contributes nothing about how the parameters interact with the run behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Starts the cron job's pipeline immediately, without waiting for its schedule.' The phrase 'without waiting for its schedule' clearly separates on-demand execution from every sibling that manages or inspects cron definitions (create_cron, update_cron, delete_cron, get_cron) and from direct pipeline triggers (trigger_pipeline, restart_pipeline).

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 gives an explicit scenario: 'this is how you test that a nightly job works before waiting a night for it.' It also clarifies constraints around use ('every call is another run'). However, it never names alternative tools or states when not to use it, e.g., a direct one-off pipeline that should go through trigger_pipeline instead.

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