Run job now

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

The description discloses that it returns the run's status plus captured HTTP response (status, headers, body) upon completion, and that schedule/enabled state are unchanged. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and destructive hint, and the description adds clarity on what exactly is affected and what is returned.

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 short sentences/paragraphs, front-loaded with the action and result, no filler. Wastes no 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?

Given the output schema exists, description adequately covers purpose, behavior, and side effects. It doesn't explain error cases, but for an immediate-run tool, this is sufficient.

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 has 100% coverage for all three parameters with descriptions. Description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 holds.

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 'Fire one immediate run of a job and return the captured result', which is a specific action on the job resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_job/delete_job by focusing on executing the job, and from list_runs/get_run by producing a new run and returning its captured response.

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 phrase 'This is the way to prove a job works' gives a clear use case, and the clarification that 'schedule and enabled state are unchanged' implicitly tells the user not to use this for configuration changes (use update_job). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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