delete_cde_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It flags 'WRITE OPERATION' but does not state that deletion is permanent, irreversible, or might have side effects on existing DAG runs or downstream dependencies. It adds minimal context beyond what the action 'Delete' already implies.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with a single clear sentence and a bold safety note. It is appropriately short for a simple delete operation, though the 'WRITE OPERATION' warning might be considered redundant given the verb 'Delete.'

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks critical context for a destructive operation. It does not mention that deletion is permanent, what happens to associated resources (e.g., job runs), or whether special permissions are required. It also fails to explain the authentication parameters, leaving users under-informed for safe invocation.

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 provides no meaning for the input parameters (job_name, cde_user, cde_password, cde_endpoint_url). It fails to explain the purpose of the optional authentication parameters or clarify the required job_name. The description adds zero value over the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('CDE Airflow job'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_cde_jobs, describe_cde_job, and trigger_cde_job. It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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 description implies usage when you need to delete a CDE job, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no guidance on when not to use it, such as if the job is running or has dependencies.

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