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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: exactly what is destroyed (the job, its result, and the stored documents), that a queued job is cancelled rather than merely removed, and that the action is irreversible. The queued-job cancellation behavior is non-obvious and would not be inferable from the annotations.

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?

One dense, front-loaded block of clauses with no filler: the operation class leads, followed by effect scope, use case, irreversibility, and endpoint. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 single-parameter destructive endpoint with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what the operation is, what data it removes, its effect on in-flight jobs, its irreversibility, and the underlying route. Nothing required for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single job_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description restates the parameter only implicitly through the DELETE endpoint path and adds no syntax or source detail beyond what the schema already says.

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 ('permanently delete an async job, its result and the stored documents') plus the service scope (Doxis AI.dp servers). It is clearly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings such as get_async_job, get_async_job_result, and list_async_jobs, and the 'WRITE:' prefix makes the operation class unmistakable.

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?

Gives a concrete intended use case ('remove personal data you no longer need') and notes the queued-job case, so the agent has clear context for invoking it. It does not, however, name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., retrieve results via get_async_job_result first), so it falls short of explicit routing guidance.

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