Start background PowerShell job

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds that it runs in the background, that logs are persistent (stdout/stderr), and that polling via job_status is required. This adds value beyond annotations by describing the async behavior and log retention. A score of 4 is appropriate since it clearly explains the key behavioral traits not fully covered by 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 consists of two sentences. The first states the purpose and behavior, the second gives actionable usage guidance. Every word earns its place, there is no fluff, and critical information is front-loaded.

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 has no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It fully captures the core functionality: starting a long-running PowerShell background job with persistent logs and instructing the agent to poll for status instead of waiting. For a tool with 3 parameters, no nested objects, and no enums, this description is complete enough for the agent to use it correctly.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no documentation for the three parameters. Despite this, the description does not describe the parameters individually, but it does imply that the command is a PowerShell command and that cwd may be used for working directory. However, label is not described at all. Since the description is concise and the overall purpose is clear, a 4 is given because the command parameter's role is obvious from context, but label and cwd could use some explanation.

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 purpose: to start a long-running PowerShell command as a background job, with persistent logs. It uses a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('background PowerShell job'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'poll with job_status instead of waiting in exec', which directly contrasts with the exec sibling.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for long-running commands, and importantly, it tells the agent not to wait for completion in-line but to poll with job_status. This is a clear directive that differentiates from exec, which would wait for output. No explicit 'when not to use' is needed as the context is clear.

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