Permanently delete a finished (done or errored) transcription job and its stored text. Refused while the job is queued or running. This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds irreversibility ('This cannot be undone') and the refusal condition beyond the annotations. It reinforces the destructive nature and specifies the scope of deletion (job and stored text), providing valuable context that the annotations alone do not convey.
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 three concise sentences with no redundant information. Each sentence adds value: the action, the condition, and the consequence, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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 simple deletion tool with a single parameter and existing annotations, the description covers the key behavioral aspects. It lacks details on error cases or return values, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of the output schema absence.
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 has one required parameter, job_id, with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The tool description references the job but doesn't explicitly explain job_id semantics, leaving the agent to infer it identifies the target job. This is insufficient given the complete lack of schema description.
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 function: permanently deleting a finished transcription job and its stored text. It distinguishes from siblings (get_job, list_jobs, submit_transcription) by specifying the delete action and the state constraint, making it unambiguous.
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 explicitly states when the tool is applicable (finished jobs) and when it is refused (queued or running). This provides clear usage guidance, though it doesn't name alternative tools for checking job status, which would have made it fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool performs a distinct lifecycle action: submit, get, list, and delete. There is no overlap in purpose, and the descriptions clearly differentiate when each should be used.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: submit_transcription, get_job, list_jobs, delete_job. The naming is predictable and aligns with the domain.
Four tools are well-scoped for a simple transcription job management service. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary bloat or missing essentials.
The core job lifecycle is covered: create, list, retrieve, and delete. The only minor gap is the lack of a cancel operation for queued or running jobs, but the provided flow is complete for typical use.