delete_job

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the tool refuses by default to prevent data loss, and that force=True re-parents linked invoices to preserve history. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs and the annotations alone do not provide.

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 well-structured and every sentence earns its place: it states the operation, the default protection behavior, the force behavior, and the alternative tool. The Args section is clean and directly maps to the schema parameters.

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?

The tool description covers the core operation, the data-loss prevention default, the force behavior, parameter semantics, and the relevant alternative. An output schema exists, so not explaining return values is acceptable. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 full responsibility for explaining parameters. It defines job_id as a Job ID and force as the flag that re-parents linked invoices instead of refusing, adding meaning well beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 immediately states the operation ('Delete a job') and then explains the key behavioral nuance around linked invoices, distinguishing this tool from update_job and other job-related tools. It clearly identifies both the action and the resource.

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 explicitly says to use update_job(active=False) instead when keeping the job in place but marking the project done. It also explains when force=True should be used, giving the agent concrete decision criteria for choosing this tool or an alternative.

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