aap_launch_job_template

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

The description discloses the return behavior: 'JSON with job id, status, url, and monitoring instructions.' Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description adds value by explaining what the agent can expect in the response. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by two illustrative examples and then an organized Args/Returns listing. It's not overly verbose, though the Args list partly duplicates the schema. The structure makes it easy to scan.

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 description covers the primary purpose, all key parameters (except credential_id), and return value format. It includes examples and monitoring guidance, which is useful for follow-up actions. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., template must exist) or failure scenarios, and the first example uses the word 'workflow' which could be confused with the sibling aap_launch_workflow tool. Overall, sufficiently complete for this operation.

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 already provides descriptive comments for all parameters (e.g., 'Ansible tags to run (comma-separated)'), so the baseline is 3. The description repeats most parameters but omits 'credential_id' and offers no additional meaning beyond what the schema gives, except for noting 'Override inventory' and 'Show diffs' which mirror schema descriptions.

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 action ('Launch an AAP job template') and the resource ('job template'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like aap_launch_workflow for workflows. The examples further clarify real-world usage. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose statement.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when a user requests launching a job template. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when NOT to use it, but the tool name and description make it obvious. Examples of natural-language triggers give additional guidance.

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