hires_delete_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete a job' but does not mention whether the operation is reversible, whether it cascades to related records (applications, candidates), or any permission requirements. For a destructive tool, this is a significant gap.

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 consists of two concise sentences. 'Delete a job' is direct and front-loaded, and the second sentence adds context without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 simple delete operation, the description covers the core action and a use case. However, given its destructive nature, it lacks crucial details such as irreversibility, impact on linked entities, and prerequisites. This leaves the description incomplete for informed agent decision-making.

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?

The schema describes the sole parameter 'id' as 'Job ID (numeric) or alias' with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic details about the parameter, but the schema is sufficient, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete a job' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hires_get_job, hires_update_job, and hires_set_job_status. The additional phrase 'Use to align archived/removed positions...' reinforces the intended scope.

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 use case: 'Use to align archived/removed positions across integrated platforms.' This indicates when the tool is appropriate, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like hires_set_job_status or hires_remove_from_job_board. The guidance is adequate but lacks explicit exclusions.

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