Delete a YouTube bulk reporting job

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) by explaining the exact irreversible consequence: deleting the job discards all accumulated daily CSVs, and a replacement starts with only a 30-day backfill. It also clarifies that without confirm nothing is deleted, and describes the read-back behavior. This is exemplary disclosure of side effects and state changes.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then immediately follows with the critical irreversible warning, and concludes with crisp procedural steps. Every sentence earns its place—there is no fluff or redundancy. The warning about data loss is placed where the agent will not miss it, and the workflow is stated in clear sequence.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers prerequisites (connected channel), the two-phase confirmation workflow, and the irreversible consequences. It tells the agent exactly what to expect when calling without confirm (job read back) and what deletion entails (loss of historical data). For a destructive tool of this complexity, this is thorough and actionable.

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% (both jobId and confirm have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the confirm parameter's role in the two-step workflow and reinforcing that jobId comes from list_youtube_report_jobs. It doesn't introduce new syntax, but it contextualizes the parameters effectively.

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 states the specific action ('Stop' a YouTube bulk reporting job) and the precise resource, which immediately distinguishes it from other delete tools (e.g., delete_x_post, delete_playbook) and from YouTube-related siblings like list_youtube_report_jobs or youtube_bulk_report. The verb 'Stop' aligns with the title's 'Delete' and leaves no ambiguity about 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?

It provides an explicit two-step protocol: call without confirm to retrieve the job details, then call with confirm:true only after user approval. It also states a prerequisite (needs a connected YouTube channel) and implicitly contrasts with list_youtube_report_jobs by telling where jobId comes from. This leaves no doubt about when and how to use the tool versus alternatives.

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