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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description goes beyond that by stating the deletion is permanent and that the transcript is destroyed along with the job, plus the running-job constraint. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but the irreversible side-effect is the key disclosure an agent needs.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive warning, then the force condition and API endpoint. Every clause carries information, though the raw REST endpoint reference is marginally useful to an agent and is the only near-redundant element.

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 2-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers permanence, the destroyed transcript, and the force override, which is enough to call it correctly. It stops short of stating what the call returns or whether any confirmation is required, but nothing essential 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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including force's 'delete even if the job is still running.' The description restates the force semantics without adding format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so 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 deletes a job and its transcript') and adds the consequence of the operation. It is unambiguous against siblings like speechmatics_get_job, speechmatics_list_jobs, and speechmatics_transcribe_url, which are all read or create operations.

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 explains the condition under which the tool behaves differently: 'Set force=true to delete even while it is still running.' That gives concrete invocation context. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but deletion is the only destructive sibling, so the gap is minor.

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