Delete job

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses important behaviors: permanent action, row shift, refusal on missing/ambiguous matches, automatic backup to .bak, and return of the deleted row for recovery. This is excellent for a mutation tool.

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 is a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the main action and then adds each behavioral detail without redundancy. Every clause 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 deletion tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential context: what is deleted, how matching works, failure behavior, backup, and return value. An agent has enough to use it correctly and handle outcomes.

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%, with both parameters already described (case-insensitive, position disambiguates). The description reinforces the combined match but adds no new parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description clearly states the action: permanently remove a job application row, with specific matching criteria (company + position) and a concrete effect (shifting rows below up). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_column or delete_document by explicitly targeting job application rows.

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?

It is obvious when to use this tool (to delete a job application row) and it adds safety context by refusing on missing or ambiguous matches. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but no sibling tool offers job deletion, so the usage context is clear.

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