herdr_job_start

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the side-effect chain (creates a worktree, opens a tab, starts an agent), but says nothing about irreversibility, what 'wait'/'focus' actually change, or permission requirements for agent_args.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and resource, then lists the optional orchestration steps in execution order. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 an 11-parameter, destructive, non-idempotent orchestration tool with no output schema, the agent still lacks key facts: what is returned (job handle/id?), how errors during the chain are surfaced, and how the 'wait' flag interacts with timeout_ms. Adequate as a one-line purpose but thin given the tool's complexity.

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% across all 11 parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description adds only the vague 'optionally create a git worktree' mapping to the worktree/cwd/base/branch group, without clarifying defaults or the HERDR_MCP_ALLOW_AGENT_ARGS gating beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Start') and resource ('code job') and enumerates the orchestrated steps: worktree, tab, agent, brief. This clearly differentiates it from lower-level siblings like herdr_agent_start and herdr_worktree_create, though it never names those siblings explicitly as the alternatives it composes.

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 this is the high-level composite path (it chains worktree+tab+agent+prompt), which hints at when to reach for it over its granular siblings. However, it never states when to use this versus herdr_agent_start or herdr_worktree_create, nor any prerequisites, so the guidance remains inferential.

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