Delete recurring job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it explicitly labels the operation 'Destructive.' It also adds the important policy that the tool must not be invoked proactively or as a side effect, which goes beyond the schema and title.

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?

Three short sentences: function first, destructive warning second, documentation link last. The most critical information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive delete with no output schema, the description covers the action, safety, authorization, and provides a documentation link. It is solid but stops short of noting behavior for nonexistent jobs or clarifying the distinction from volume-scoped recurring job deletion.

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% and the description does not explain the 'name' parameter's format, source, or behavior when the job does not exist. The phrase 'a Longhorn recurring job' implies the name identifies the job, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema-level parameter documentation.

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?

States a concrete action and object: 'Delete a Longhorn recurring job.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource type, and platform, and distinguishes it from sibling recurringjob_create/update/get/list operations.

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?

Provides an explicit authorization gate: 'Do not call this unless the user has explicitly authorized it in this conversation — never proactively, speculatively, or as a side effect of another task.' This is strong when-not guidance, but it does not name alternatives such as volume_recurring_job_delete for volume-scoped removal.

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