Run Sync Job

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

While annotations already flag this as a non-read-only operation, the description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that it returns a Task UPID, indicating an asynchronous task is started. This is valuable since there is no output schema. It stops short of detailing side effects, prerequisites, or failure modes, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact and well-organized, leading with a clear one-line purpose followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence has value and the content is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse the essential information.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the supporting annotations, the description covers the essential information: what it does and what it returns. It is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could add a note about retrieving the ID (e.g., via pbs_list_sync_jobs) or potential error conditions for a fully complete picture.

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 a description for 'id' as 'Sync job ID', and the tool's Args section simply repeats that same text. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no new meaning or guidance about the parameter's format, source, or constraints beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's function with a specific verb ('trigger'), a resource ('sync job'), and a scope ('configured... by ID'). It also naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on sync jobs rather than listing, verification, or other operations.

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 usage when a sync job ID is already known and you want to start it manually, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. No direct contrast with siblings like pbs_list_sync_jobs or pbs_run_verification_job is provided.

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