Erase Pipeline Job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by specifying exactly what is destroyed (log and artifacts) versus what survives (the job record) and that the action is irreversible — details the annotations do not convey. It does not mention permission requirements or whether partial deletion can occur.

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 compact sentences with the destructive scope and irreversibility front-loaded, followed by the input requirement and pre-check. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 mutation with no output schema, the destruction scope and irreversibility are well covered, but the undocumented optional project_id leaves a real gap — the agent cannot tell whether omitting it is safe or what it defaults to.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates that job_id is required (already in the schema's required list) and says nothing about project_id, leaving one of two parameters entirely undefined for the agent.

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 names a specific verb (erase) and resource (a finished job's log and artifacts), and immediately clarifies the boundary — the job record itself remains. That distinction separates it cleanly from siblings like gitlab_delete_pipeline or gitlab_cancel_pipeline_job.

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 states the required input and recommends gitlab_get_pipeline_job as a pre-check, which is a concrete usage cue. It does not spell out when not to use it (e.g., running jobs, or alternatives for cleanup), but the 'finished job' qualifier implicitly sets a precondition.

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