delete_job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new information: the deletion cascades to pods, it is irreversible ('no undo'), and a dry-run preview exists. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 [WRITE][risk=high] marker and the irreversible warning before the dry-run escape hatch and the Args list. Every line earns its place; 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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation with four parameters, it covers the risk profile, cascade behavior, preview mechanism, and every parameter. Missing only operational detail such as required permissions or the shape of the delete response/confirmation.

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 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden, and it documents all four: name, namespace (with the omit-for-default semantics), dry_run (preview behavior), and target (k8s target name from config). The name entry is merely a restatement, keeping it from a 5.

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+resource ('Delete a job') plus a key side effect ('and its pods'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like job_get, job_list, delete_pod, and delete_deployment. An agent can route to it without opening any 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?

Gives clear context for use (a destructive, irreversible delete) and explicitly offers the dry_run=True preview path. It does not name alternative tools or state when *not* to use it, but the resource-specific scope makes the routing unambiguous.

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