delete_jobs

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 clearly states this is a destructive operation ('This action cannot be undone'), which is crucial context for a deletion tool. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to associated data, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste - the first states the purpose, the second provides critical behavioral warning. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality, making it highly efficient.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by warning about irreversibility. However, it doesn't explain what 'jobs' are in this context, what happens after deletion, or whether there are prerequisites (like feed status). Given the complexity of a deletion tool, slightly more context would be beneficial.

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%, with the single parameter 'feedId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (it doesn't explain feedId format, validation rules, or examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Delete') and target resource ('all jobs for a specific feed'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_feed (which deletes the feed itself) or list_jobs (which only lists jobs). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool (to delete jobs for a specific feed), but doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like retry_failed_jobs (for selective job management) or delete_feed (for deleting the entire feed). The irreversible warning implies caution but doesn't specify exclusions.

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