delete_job

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, but no information is given about side effects (e.g., cascading deletes, error states, permission requirements). This is severely lacking for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise (two words), but this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. While conciseness is generally good, here it results in under-specification that hinders correct tool usage.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits behavioral context, parameter semantics, and usage guidance, making it insufficient for an agent to safely and correctly invoke the tool.

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%. The description fails to explain the singular parameter (job_id), its format, or how to acquire it. It adds no value beyond the schema's type definition.

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 'Delete a job' clearly states the verb (Delete) and direct object (a job), distinguishing it from siblings like cancel_job or list_jobs. However, it lacks nuance about what 'delete' entails compared to 'cancel', which is a minor gap.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cancel_job), prerequisites (e.g., job state), or scenarios to avoid. The presence of many sibling tools makes this omission critical.

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