Delete a job (destructive)

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

The description discloses that the operation is destructive ('the job and its schedule are removed') and clarifies that backups are retained unless removed separately. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the title, though it could mention idempotency or error handling.

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 with three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: main action, destructiveness note, and usage constraint. No wasted words, and critical information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, destructiveness, and parameter requirement. It lacks mention of return value or error conditions, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the agent to use correctly.

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?

The parameter jobId is already described in the schema with 'Job ID (GUID) from list_jobs'. The description adds value by stating 'Requires a specific job ID; there is no bulk delete', reinforcing the parameter's semantics and usage constraints.

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 clearly states 'Permanently delete a job configuration by ID', specifying the verb (delete), resource (job configuration), and method (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like disable_job or stop_job.

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 notes 'Requires a specific job ID; there is no bulk delete', providing clear guidance on when to use (with a job ID) and when not (no bulk operations). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for similar actions.

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