delete_application

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the crucial trait: permanent, cannot be undone. It stops short of stating cascade scope (whether notes, attachments, interviews, or the candidate record survive) or any permission requirement, which matters for a destructive operation.

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?

Three short, front-loaded statements: capability and risk first, ID discovery second, safer alternative third. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the destructive nature plus the safer sibling are covered. The remaining gap is blast radius — what else is removed along with the application — which an agent deciding between delete and reject would want.

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% and there is only one parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema's bare 'Greenhouse application ID to delete' by explaining how to derive that ID from a candidate-name search.

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 and resource ('Permanently delete an application') and immediately qualifies the scope with irreversibility. It is clearly distinguishable from reject_application, which the description explicitly names.

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 alternative ('Consider reject_application instead — it preserves history and can be reversed with unreject_application'), which is a when-not-to-use condition, plus a concrete lookup chain (search_candidates_by_name → get_candidate → match the application to the job) for obtaining the required ID.

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