remove_saved_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It openly states that the tool removes the job 'and its history,' signaling destructive side effects beyond the obvious delete. The preference for archiving reinforces that this operation is not a reversible status change, though it does not mention permissions or error behavior.

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 with no filler. The action and destructive scope are front-loaded, and the alternative tool is mentioned in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive operation with an output schema, the description is complete: it states what is removed, where it is removed from, and the safer alternative. Return value details are already covered by the output schema, so no additional information is needed.

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 0%: job_id has only a name and type, with no description. The tool description does not directly explain job_id, but 'from the local tracker' indicates that job_id identifies a locally saved job, which provides enough context for a single self-explanatory string parameter.

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 uses a precise verb ('Remove') and a clear resource ('job and its history from the local tracker'). It clearly differentiates this destructive operation from the non-destructive sibling update_job_status, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises preferring update_job_status(..., "archived") when the record should be kept, which tells the agent both when to use this tool and when to use the alternative. This is direct, actionable usage guidance rather than a vague hint.

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