control_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: pause is defined as halting 'between agent steps' (async checkpointing), cancel 'aborts in-flight work too' (stronger than pause), and inject's instruction is seen 'on its next step.' It still omits whether cancel is irreversible, whether resume works after cancel, and any permission/ownership requirements.

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?

One front-loaded sentence opens with the verb and resource, then lists the four actions with tight parenthetical clarifications. No sentence is filler.

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 a 3-parameter control tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives an agent enough to choose an action and understand its effect. It leaves out job_id semantics and any statement about results/errors, which is a minor but real gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is only 33% (just 'message'), but the description compensates well by defining the behavioral meaning of each enum value for 'action' beyond the bare enum list. The 'job_id' parameter is left entirely unexplained, and the inject/message dependency is only in the schema, so it does not fully close the coverage gap.

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 ('Steer') plus resource ('a running background job') and enumerates every action it performs. This clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like get_job, list_jobs, and wait_job without opening any schema.

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?

Each action's intent is spelled out, and 'inject' is explicitly scoped to 'course-correcting a run_local_agent mid-flight,' which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming alternatives (e.g., use get_job/wait_job instead when you only want status), so it is strong context without explicit routing.

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