delete_cron_job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint:true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the explicit warning that deletion is 'irreversible,' which is stronger and more specific than the destructive flag. This is valuable context about the permanence of the operation, though it does not mention confirm/dry_run parameters (covered in the schema).

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 two short sentences: the action is front-loaded, and the warning is concise. No filler or redundant content. It earns its place entirely.

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?

Given the rich schema (all parameters documented), annotations (destructiveHint:true), and output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for the agent to select and invoke the tool. The irreversible warning adds essential context not fully captured by annotations. The confirmation workflow is documented in the schema, so the absence in the description is acceptable.

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?

The input schema provides 100% parameter documentation, including descriptions for job_id (referencing search_cron_jobs), confirm (safety gate), dry_run (preview), and apply_immediately. The description's phrase 'by ID' adds no new information beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete'), the target resource ('cron job'), and the method ('by ID'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_cron_jobs and create_cron_job, as well as other delete_* tools targeting different resources.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. Usage is implied (when you need to delete a cron job), but it lacks guidance such as using search_cron_jobs to obtain the ID or cautioning against use if temporary disablement is intended.

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