bulk_delete_job_openings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags the operation as destructive and irreversible, states it is asynchronous, and names the returned bulk_action_uuid plus the follow-up tool. It omits permission/auth requirements and rate limits, which would round it out.

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 compact sentences, zero waste, with the destructive/irreversible warning front-loaded ahead of the follow-up guidance.

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 async bulk tool with an output schema present, the description supplies the essential context: irreversibility, async semantics, and the progress-check sibling. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters (opening_ids, callback_url) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what is structured, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Delete) plus resource (openings) plus scope (many, in one asynchronous request). The bulk/async framing cleanly separates it from the singular delete_job_opening and from bulk_create/update_job_openings siblings.

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?

Implies bulk use and explicitly routes the agent to get_bulk_request_status for progress. It doesn't name delete_job_opening as the alternative for single deletions, so the when-not case is left to inference.

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