job_preflight

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool can produce defer decisions and that they should be obeyed. However, it does not state whether calling it is safe/read-only, whether it reserves resources, whether repeated calls are allowed, or what the actual response will look like.

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 one tight sentence with no filler, and the primary usage instruction is front-loaded. It is appropriately short, though it is terse enough to omit important behavioral and parameter context. Still, the structure is clean and scannable.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what a preflight result looks like, what a 'defer decision' means, and how it relates to sibling tools like defer_until_reset or quota_status. None of that is present, so an agent is left without enough context to fully act on the result.

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 only 25%, with workspaceRoot documented. The description adds no guidance about jobClass choices, the purpose of the required description field, or why estimatedMinutes matters. The enum values 'small/medium/long' and numeric bounds give minimal hints, but the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 names the action context: call before costly boundaries such as builds, deploys, migrations, and training jobs. The phrase 'Obey defer decisions' signals that the tool returns a go/defer judgment, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools. It does not fully state what preflight checks or computes, but it is clear enough for an agent to know it is a job-approval gate.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: call before long builds, tests, deploys, migrations, training, or packaging jobs. The examples give concrete triggers. It stops short of saying when not to call and does not explicitly name an alternative tool such as defer_until_reset, though 'obey defer decisions' implies that follow-up path.

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