手动触发一次执行

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: immediate execution, no impact on scheduling state, parameter override, and addressList routing behavior. These add valuable context beyond the raw operation. However, it does not mention return values, error conditions, or asynchronous behavior, which is a gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then concise supplementary details about parameter override and addressList behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant words.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose and parameter behavior, but omits important contextual information such as return format, potential errors, and whether the trigger is asynchronous. For a trigger operation, this leaves some gaps for the agent.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only paraphrases the schema's parameter meanings (override params, address list semantics) without adding new information, such as parameter syntax or constraints.

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 tool manually triggers a specified job to execute immediately once, and emphasizes it does not affect the original scheduling state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_job/stop_job, providing a specific verb, resource, and scope.

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 implies the appropriate context: use when an immediate one-time execution is needed without changing the schedule. It also explains the behavior of the optional addressList parameter (empty means use configured routing strategy). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, preventing a 5.

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