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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states 'Permanently delete' which conveys irreversibility, and 'and its results' indicates the scope of deletion. However, it does not mention any additional behaviors such as authentication requirements, error conditions, or effects on dependent resources. The core destructive nature is disclosed, but richer context is missing.

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 extremely concise—two short paragraphs with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage condition is clearly separated. Every sentence earns its place, making it an efficient and well-structured definition.

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?

The tool is a simple delete operation with two parameters (one required) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the key aspects: what it does, the permanent nature, the scope (results), and the usage condition. It does not mention potential error cases or prerequisites beyond the job being owned, but given the simplicity, it is adequately complete.

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%—both job_id and api_key are described in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no format, constraints, or additional context). Since the schema already documents both parameters, the baseline score of 3 applies; the description does not need to compensate.

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: 'Permanently delete a job and its results.' It specifies the resource (job) and the scope (and its results), which distinguishes it from other delete tools like delete_dataset or delete_project. The verb 'delete' and the explicit scope leave no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 a clear usage condition: 'Use when: You want to remove a job you no longer need from your account.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the tool name and scope make the context straightforward. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide to use this tool over sibling delete tools.

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