Permanently deletes a scheduled job by its ID and returns removed=true on success. Requires an explicit confirm flag acknowledging the state-changing call.
Delete a scheduled job (Step 88, ADR-088). Returns removed=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| confirm | Yes | mandatory acknowledgement that this call mutates state; the tool writes nothing unless it is true (D5-08, D5-12) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / confirmAdded value: +{
+ "description": "mandatory acknowledgement that this call mutates state; the tool writes nothing unless it is true (D5-08, D5-12)",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "job_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "job_id",
+ "confirm"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered by structured data. The description usefully adds the return shape ('Returns removed=true'), which matters because there is no output schema, but it omits the mandatory confirm acknowledgement and the irreversibility of deletion.
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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the return value second; nothing is padded. The internal references '(Step 88, ADR-088)' are the only text that adds little for an invoking agent, keeping it just short of a 5.
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 mutation with no output schema, the description does supply the return value, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, it never states that confirm=true is required to actually mutate state or that deletion is permanent — the two facts an agent most needs before calling this.
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 50%: 'confirm' is documented in the schema, but 'job_id' has no description anywhere. The description contributes no parameter meaning at all, so it does not compensate for the undocumented job_id or clarify the confirm contract beyond what the schema already says.
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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Delete a scheduled job' — which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like job_create, job_update, and job_trigger. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the verb alone separates it from every sibling.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., job_update to disable a job, or job_trigger to run it now), and no mention of prerequisites or when deletion is inappropriate. The agent is left to infer that deletion is the terminal, irreversible option.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.