delete_system_jobs

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the destructive nature is clearly known. The description adds the 'queue' context and endpoint, but does not discuss side effects such as whether a running job is cancelled, whether deletion is immediate, or if any confirmation is required. With annotations covering the core safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Including the endpoint and param listing is useful, and there is no superfluous text. It could be slightly more fluid by integrating the endpoint into the first sentence, but overall it is well-structured and efficient.

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 single-parameter destructive operation, the description is reasonably complete. It names the resource, the action, and the only argument. Output schema exists, and annotations cover safety properties. The main missing piece is guidance on when deletion is appropriate, but that is a usage-guidelines aspect rather than a completeness gap for invoking 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%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining 'id' as a 'Job ID to delete from queue', adding domain meaning beyond the bare integer type in the schema. This makes the parameter's role clear, though it could have been slightly more detailed about constraints or behavior.

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 opens with a direct, specific verb and resource: 'Delete a job from the queue.' It clearly identifies the operation and target, and the HTTP verb DELETE reinforces the action. The tool name and sibling list further confirm this is a dedicated system-job deletion operation, distinct from other delete_* tools on different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like patch_system_jobs or other delete tools. It only states what the tool does, without any context about when deletion is appropriate, whether there are prerequisites (e.g., job must be idle), or which alternatives exist for non-destructive updates.

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