delete_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: the file is deleted from the server unless delete_file is false. However, it does not state that the removal is irreversible, whether permissions are required, or what happens if the job is still 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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and folds the conditional file deletion into the same clause. No waste.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema the description covers the main risk (file deletion), but it leaves out irreversibility and any interaction with in-flight jobs, which matter for a destructive operation with no annotations backing it up.

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 usefully explains the effect of delete_file (file retention vs. deletion) but omits the default of true that the schema declares, and says nothing about job_id beyond its obvious role.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Remove a job from the list') and adds the scope of the side effect on the server file. It distinguishes itself in substance from siblings like cancel_job or retry_job, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 choose this over cancel_job — a sibling that would be the obvious alternative when a user wants to stop a job without erasing it. Usage is only inferable from the word 'Remove'.

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