cutbolt_job_start

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes further by disclosing that arguments are validated synchronously, that the ticket is durable, and that independent jobs run concurrently. It does not, however, explain failure/retry behavior or what a rejected command does to the queue.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and workflow, no wasted framing. The long command enumeration partially duplicates the schema's run description, which is mildly redundant, but it remains readable and earns most of its space.

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 queue/bootstrap tool with no output schema and a nested arguments object, it covers the full lifecycle: validation timing, durability of the ticket, concurrency, and the follow-up/cancel siblings. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 request_id, run, arguments and job_root are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond noting arguments are prepared/validated now, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Queue a long-running command in the background') plus the return artifact ('durable ticket'), and enumerates the exact command set. It clearly distinguishes itself from the read/wait siblings (job.status, job.wait) that consume its output.

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 routes the agent downstream: 'Follow with job.wait or job.status', and prescribes the batching pattern 'queue several, then wait for them all with one job.wait job_ids; job.cancel stops one.' It names the alternatives and the conditions that select them.

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