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

Goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing exactly what is destroyed (job plus its media and transcript), that the action is irreversible, and that only terminal-state jobs qualify. These are the operative behavioral details an agent needs before committing to a destructive call.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the 'WRITE' classification and the permanence warning. Every sentence carries distinct information (effect, irreversibility, precondition, endpoint) 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?

For a single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers effect, durability, and preconditions well. The only minor gap is what the caller receives on success (e.g., empty response vs. status), which is left unstated.

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 schema description already explains that job_id comes from revai_submit_job or revai_list_jobs. The description only restates the path variable as {id}, adding no meaning beyond the structured data, so the baseline 3 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 ('permanently delete a ... job') and adds scope qualifiers (finished/transcribed/failed). The destructive, irreversible nature and the in-progress exclusion make it unmistakable against read-oriented siblings like revai_get_job and revai_list_jobs.

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 clear precondition for use: only finished jobs may be deleted, and in-progress jobs are rejected. It does not need to name a fallback tool since no sibling offers an alternative deletion path, but it stops short of an explicit 'use X instead' statement.

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