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

Annotations already mark the tool destructive and not read-only, and the description adds concrete consequences: it deletes deck and results tarballs, retains metadata and billing records, and ends download availability. This goes beyond the generic flags and gives an agent accurate side-effect expectations.

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?

Two sentences front-load the main action and timing, followed by the retention consequence. There is no filler, title repetition, or schema duplication.

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 one-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the description covers what is deleted, when, what is kept, and what becomes impossible after call. The control, timing, irreversible consequence, and total job data target are enough for correct invocation.

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 100% and the single id parameter is already described with an example and required marker, so the baseline applies. The description's 'finished job' condition adds some targeting nuance, but no meaning beyond the schema is required. No extra parameter semantics gap exists.

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?

Description names the exact action ('delete its deck and results tarballs') and the resource (files of a finished job), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like cancel_job or job_results. It also demarcates what is not deleted, making the tool's scope 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 gives a clear trigger—call this on finished jobs to delete files immediately instead of waiting for the 30-day purge—and states a functional consequence. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as job_results for downloading afterward or cancel_job for unfinished jobs, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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