hookbase_delete_cron_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Delete') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., stopping scheduled tasks), or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, 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 is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive delete operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permanence, permissions, or response format, which are critical for safe and effective use. The description should do more to compensate for missing structured data.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'job_id' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a scheduled cron job'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'hookbase_list_cron_jobs' (list) and 'hookbase_trigger_cron' (trigger), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The specificity is good but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing cron job ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'hookbase_list_cron_jobs' for finding IDs. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly defined.

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