delete_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares the operation destructive and irreversible, explains why recovery needs an external backup, and enumerates the exact environment gates that must be enabled. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before firing an unrecoverable write.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the destructive outcome, then recovery implications, then prerequisites. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no filler.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what is removed, irreversibility, and the required gating flags. Only minor gaps remain: no statement of error behavior for a non-existent job and no explicit non-destructive alternative.

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 single parameter 'job_name' has no schema description, so the description is the only place semantics could be supplied. It never states the expected identifier form (display name vs. full path vs. URL segment) or what happens on a name mismatch, adding essentially no meaning beyond the schema's field name.

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 with scope ('Delete a job and all of its build history'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like disable_job or list_jobs. The addition of 'all of its build history' disambiguates the blast radius beyond a bare delete.

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 clear preconditions ('Disabled by default; requires MCP_ALLOW_JOB_WRITE, MCP_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE and MCP_ALLOW_JOB_DELETE') and a workflow directive ('Confirm with get_job first'). It does not name a non-destructive alternative such as disable_job for the case where history should be preserved, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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