Clear finished jobs

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds real value on top by stating exactly what is deleted (finished, failed, stopped jobs) and what survives (queued/running jobs and their results such as rankings and options). It stops short of saying removal is irreversible or that no data beyond the list entry is lost.

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?

Two short sentences with the destructive scope front-loaded and the safety clarification immediately after; every clause carries actionable information and nothing is repeated from the annotations.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers what is affected and what is untouched, which is the key risk an agent must weigh. A note on irreversibility or confirmation requirements would make it fully complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly avoids inventing filtering options.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Remove finished, failed and stopped jobs from the job list") with an explicit scope qualifier. It implicitly differentiates from stop_job/wait_for_jobs by stating that queued and running jobs are kept, though it never names a sibling outright.

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?

Use is only implied: an agent must infer that this is the cleanup action for terminal-state jobs and that stop_job should be used instead when a job is still running. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement is present.

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