Delete a Batch job with all its runs and results, for good. A run in flight stops picking up tasks at once, and the job frees its active-job slot. The job reads as not found right away; storage is cleaned up in the background. Idempotent. To keep the results, use batch_cancel instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Batch job id returned by batch_create or batch_list |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: what is destroyed (all runs and results), that in-flight runs stop picking up tasks at once, that the active-job slot is freed, that the job reads as not found immediately, and that storage cleanup happens in the background.
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?
Front-loads the core action and outcome, then layers timing, slot behavior, idempotency, and the alternative in short declarative clauses. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.
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?
As a destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition still covers destruction scope, immediate vs background effects, idempotency, and the safer alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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?
Only one parameter (job_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics ('Batch job id returned by batch_create or batch_list'). The description adds nothing about the argument, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a Batch job with all its runs and results') and immediately distinguishes itself from batch_cancel by scope. An agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to the alternative: 'To keep the results, use batch_cancel instead.' The when-to-use condition for the destructive path versus the cancel path is stated outright, leaving nothing to inference.
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.
