Delete job posting

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does clearly signal that deletion is permanent and that history is lost. It does not, however, disclose whether related resources such as job applications are also affected, which would be useful for a destructive operation.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core action and permanence warning are front-loaded, and the alternative is mentioned in a compact, actionable way.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter tool, and the description covers its main usage and the key alternative. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, a bit more detail about post-deletion effects or related data 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never explains the meaning of the id parameter beyond what the schema's type: string already states. An agent has to infer that id identifies the job posting to delete, with no guidance on format or where to obtain it.

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 specific action ('Permanently delete a job posting') with a precise verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool from update_job_posting by framing deletion as the permanent counterpart to unpublishing, so an agent can easily tell which operation to use.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: prefer update_job_posting with published: false for closing applications while preserving history. This directly names the alternative tool and the condition that should redirect the agent away from deletion, leaving no ambiguity.

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