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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: what survives the deletion (artifacts and billing history), the required user confirmation, and the precondition that the job be stopped first. It stops short of saying whether the removal is reversible or permanent for the job record itself.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the destructive action and its precondition are front-loaded ahead of the retention and gating details.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: precondition, confirmation requirement, and what is preserved. The only meaningful hole is that the parameter itself is never explained.

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% for the single parameter job_id, so the description carries the burden and adds nothing — it never mentions the identifier, its format, or how to obtain it. An agent must infer that job_id is the job being deleted.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a finished job from the project workspace'), and scopes it to finished jobs only. It implicitly separates itself from cancel_job by stating active jobs must be canceled first, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear applicability condition (only finished jobs) and an explicit exclusion with the required alternative path ('Active jobs must be canceled and confirmed stopped first'). It also imposes a workflow rule ('after confirming with the user'), but it does not name the sibling tool that performs the cancellation.

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