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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two behavioral traits: irreversibility and authentication requirement. However, it does not mention side effects, whether it is a hard or soft delete, or what happens to related data. For a destruction tool, this is useful but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the action and immediately states the irreversibility, then the auth requirement. Every sentence provides 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?

For a single-parameter delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical aspects: what is deleted, irreversibility, authentication, and ownership scope. It lacks details about post-deletion effects or confirmation responses, but these are less critical for correct invocation. The mention of 'your company' clarifies ownership constraints.

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 description covers the only parameter 'job_slug' with a clear description ('Job slug to delete'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Delete'), the resource ('a job posting from your company on Himalayas'), and adds an important qualifier ('This action cannot be undone'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes well from siblings like update_company_job or list_company_jobs.

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 gives clear context about the action (delete job, irreversible) and a prerequisite (employer authentication), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. For a delete operation, this is adequate but not fully explicit about exclusions or alternative tools like soft-deactivate via update_job_status.

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