delete_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only one trait: the deletion is permanent. It says nothing about whether execution history is also removed, whether a running job can be deleted, what permissions are required, or whether the call is idempotent for a missing id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined compression.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description should say more: cascade effects on executions, error behavior, and safety warnings. The one word 'permanently' is the only risk signal an agent gets.

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 and it does not — the single 'id' parameter is never mentioned or clarified (job id vs. execution id vs. external id). The agent is left to infer the parameter's meaning entirely from the schema's bare type declaration.

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 pairs a specific verb (Delete) with a specific resource (a job) and adds the scope qualifier 'permanently', so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like pause_job or delete_alert, but the name plus description leaves no ambiguity about 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus pause_job or update_job, both of which are plausible alternatives for an agent dealing with an unwanted job. No preconditions (job must exist, must not be running) or exclusions are stated.

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