delete_job

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Remove a job from a schedule' without specifying side effects, reversibility, index-shifting behavior, permission requirements, or error handling. This is insufficient 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 brief and front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a concise argument list. There is no wasted text, though the argument list duplicates schema information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple (two integer params, no enums, output schema present), so the description covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks any explanation of behavior after deletion, such as index shifting, error conditions, or whether deletion is permanent. This leaves gaps for an agent using the tool in a real workflow.

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 provides only titles ('Schedule Index', 'Job Index') with no descriptions, so the 0% coverage means the description must compensate. It does add meaning by clarifying that both indexes are 0-based and that job_index refers to a position within the schedule, which maps well to the schema. However, it could add more context about valid ranges or preconditions.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a job from a schedule'), which distinguishes it from siblings like delete_schedule (removes an entire schedule) and add_job (adds a job). The purpose is immediately understandable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as delete_schedule or add_job. There are no explicit prerequisites, exclusions, or usage context, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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