create_settings_jobs_by_job_id_run

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds the HTTP method and path, but does not disclose what 'invoke' means in terms of side effects (e.g., does it block, return immediately, or require server readiness). With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is reasonable—it adds a little context but not rich behavioral detail.

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 description is appropriately terse, containing only the action, the endpoint, and the parameter note. Every sentence serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the core action. The minor redundancy of stating 'Path parameter' when the endpoint already shows it in braces is acceptable.

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?

Given the tool is simple (one required parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema exists to communicate return values), the description is nearly complete. It explains the core behavior and the endpoint, and the output schema handles the response. Missing details like 'how to get job_id' are minor for such a straightforward tool.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only adds that job_id is a 'Path parameter'—which is marginally useful but does not explain what a job_id looks like or how to obtain valid values. The description does not clarify the parameter's purpose beyond its type, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

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 ('Invoke') and a clear resource ('a specific job'), and the provided endpoint makes the action unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like create_settings_jobs_by_job_id_cancel and create_settings_jobs_by_job_id_schedule by emphasizing the 'run' action, even though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to run vs. schedule or cancel a job). It only states what the tool does, not the context in which it should be selected, nor any prerequisites or side effects.

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