fluig_job_delete

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it declares the operation destructive, discloses a concrete failure mode (missing jobType causes NullPointerException, previously costly), and warns that the UI grid shows stale state so results must be confirmed in QRTZ_TRIGGERS. It doesn't state permissions required or whether deletion is reversible/cascading.

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 destructive warning and the mandatory-parameter requirement are front-loaded, which is the right ordering. Some density from the emoji markers and the parenthetical aside about past failed attempts, but every sentence carries operational information.

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 4-parameter destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisite discovery, the critical failure mode, and post-deletion verification. What's missing is what a successful call returns/changes beyond the job record itself, but that is a minor residual gap.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema by specifying the provenance of jobId and jobTypeInt (from fluig_jobs_list) and re-emphasizing that jobType is mandatory — the one parameter whose omission breaks the call.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Apaga job(s) agendado(s)") plus an explicit destructive flag. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling jobs tools (fluig_jobs_list, fluig_job_add, fluig_job_run) by naming the one that supplies its inputs.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: obtain jobId and jobTypeInt from fluig_jobs_list, then verify the result with fluig_db_query against QRTZ_TRIGGERS. No "when not to use" case is stated, though the destructive framing and the prod/teste env semantics in the schema cover that gap implicitly.

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