delete_sdg_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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation can preview deletion and optionally delete artifacts, but it does not state irreversibility, prerequisites for terminal jobs, or side effects on dependent data. For a destructive tool, this is minimal disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It compresses the core action compactly, though combining 'Preview or delete' into one phrase is slightly dense.

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 5-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this description is too thin. It omits the preview default behavior, the terminal-job prerequisite, artifact deletion semantics, and idempotency key purpose. The output schema helps with return shape but does not compensate for these gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. 'Optionally its artifacts' loosely hints at delete_artifacts, but preview, command_id, idempotency_key, and their relationships are completely unexplained. An agent cannot infer parameter meanings from this text.

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 action ('Preview or delete') and a specific resource ('one terminal job record'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like cancel_sdg_job or cleanup_artifacts, but 'terminal job record' narrows the scope meaningfully.

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 phrase 'terminal job record' implies the job should be in a completed/terminal state, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention that cancel_sdg_job is for active jobs or that delete_artifact/cleanup_artifacts handle artifacts separately.

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