delete_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It clearly explains the default refusal behavior, the re-parenting side effect of force=True, and the data-loss prevention rationale. The only minor gap is not describing the return value or confirmation payload, but the core mutation semantics and side effects are well disclosed.

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?

Well-structured with the headline verb first, then a clear paragraph on behavior, then the Args section that separates into a parsable docstring. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, no filler. The docstring format is consistent and easy to parse.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the critical behavioral aspects: default refusal, force semantics, and the alternative tool to use. Has output schema present so return values needn't be detailed. Could mention what happens to the job's children/line items beyond invoices, but for a 2-param delete tool this is strong coverage.

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 must compensate. It explains that force=True re-parents linked invoices instead of refusing, which adds substantial meaning beyond the bare boolean type. job_id is simply identified as 'Job ID' which aligns with schema. Could add type/format hints but the force semantics are the critical value-add.

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 'Delete a job' with a specific verb+resource, then adds significant detail about force behavior and data-loss prevention. It also distinguishes from update_job(active=False), clearly differentiating it from the most relevant sibling tool.

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?

Explicit when-not-to-use guidance: refuses by default when invoices/bills are linked (data-loss prevention), explains force=True behavior, and explicitly recommends update_job(active=False) as the alternative when keeping the job is preferred. This is model usage guidance.

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