aap_delete_job_template

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical behavioral detail beyond that: the tool does not delete on the first call—it returns a confirmation prompt, and the confirmation_token from that call is required to complete the deletion. This two-step protocol is essential for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and is not inferable from annotations or schema. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with the purpose and a DESTRUCTIVE warning before structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves operational value—no filler or redundant annotation repetition. The docstring format is clean and scannable.

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?

Given the tool's complex two-call destructive flow and zero parameter descriptions in the schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: first call yields a confirmation prompt, second call with token yields success JSON. Minor gaps remain around failure modes (e.g., invalid confirmation_token) and side effects on dependent resources like schedules, but the core operational behavior is adequately specified.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'template_id (int): Template ID to delete' and 'confirmation_token (Optional[str]): Token from first call.' The token description links it meaningfully to the confirmation flow, adding semantics far beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 'Delete an AAP job template,' a specific verb+resource statement that unambiguously identifies the tool's function. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like aap_delete_workflow_template, aap_delete_schedule, and aap_delete_organization, which target different resources. The DESTRUCTIVE warning reinforces the purpose.

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 context via 'DESTRUCTIVE - requires confirmation' and outlines the two-call token flow, implying when it is safe to use (after confirmation). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria relative to siblings like aap_update_job_template or aap_launch_job_template. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

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