删除任务

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states the deletion is permanent, irrecoverable, and clears job configuration and historical logs. This is critical context beyond a simple 'remove' and covers the most important destructive aspects, though it omits details about permissions or behavior if the job is running.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the action, the object, and the consequences without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key verb 'permanently delete' and maintains high information density.

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 deletion tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and its aftermath. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator or deleted job ID), which would be helpful for an agent to verify completion. This small gap prevents a perfect score.

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 input schema already fully describes the sole parameter 'jobId' with a clear description. The tool description provides no additional parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not add value beyond the schema.

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 the action (permanent deletion) and the resource (specified job). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stop_job or update_job by emphasizing irreversibility and the removal of both configuration and historical logs.

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 implies usage for permanently removing a job but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives (e.g., stop_job for temporary suspension). The irreversible warning subtly indicates it is not for temporary actions, but no direct when/when-not guidance is given.

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