Delete Hermes scheduled job

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, but the description clearly signals destructive behavior by saying 'removes a scheduled Hermes cron job and cancels any in-flight run'. It adds context beyond annotations by specifying that in-flight runs are canceled and that 'redacted receipts' are written. However, it doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether removal is reversible, or consequences for dependent resources. Notable: destructiveHint=false seems optimistic given the description, but doesn't directly contradict since the hint is false (not destructive), while the description says it removes a job—this is a mild tension but not a direct contradiction of a readOnly write claim.

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 a single sentence that packs endpoint, verb, purpose, and side effects (cancels in-flight run, writes redacted receipts) into a compact form. Zero wasted words and front-loaded with the most important semantic content. Ideal length for this simple tool.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. The tool is simple (1 param, no nesting, 100% schema coverage). The description covers the core action, a side effect (in-flight cancellation), and output behavior (redacted receipts). Given the tool's simplicity and the structured data already available, this is reasonably complete, though it could optionally mention authentication requirements or idempotency behavior for repeated deletes.

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 100% for the single parameter (job_id has 'Unique job identifier' and min/max length constraints). The description adds the endpoint path detail (/api/jobs/{job_id}) which connects the parameter to the HTTP URL, a slight value-add. With full schema coverage and only one simple parameter, the description doesn't need to add much, but it also doesn't explain what kind of identifier job_id is (UUID vs name) or format expectations.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Typed DELETE /api/jobs/{job_id} wrapper that removes a scheduled Hermes cron job'), including the exact HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes itself from siblings like hermes_api_jobs_pause, hermes_api_jobs_resume, and hermes_api_jobs_run by making the destructive removal semantics explicit. The title 'Delete Hermes scheduled job' reinforces the purpose.

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 when to use it (when a job needs removal), but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like pause (temporary halt) versus delete (permanent removal). Among the many sibling job-related tools, there's no explicit exclusion guidance distinguishing delete from pause/resume/run. The context of 'removes' and 'cancels in-flight run' gives reasonable implied usage but no explicit alternatives.

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