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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the deletion is 'soft' (data not hard-destroyed) and restricted to interviews the caller owns, plus a human-confirmation guardrail. It omits any permission/error behavior and how soft-deleted records behave in later reads.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the invocation guard. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose, soft-delete semantics and the human-approval gate, but leaves the admin-only organization_id path unaddressed, which is the one notable gap for a 2-parameter delete tool.

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 50%: interview_id is self-evident and organization_id carries its own note about platform-admin org selection. The description adds only the ownership scoping implication and never mentions organization_id or the admin-only organizational context, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Soft-delete an interview') plus an ownership scope ('owned by the authenticated user'), which cleanly separates it from the delete_participant/delete_study/delete_webhook siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.

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?

Gives an explicit gate: 'Call only when the human explicitly requests deletion of this interview,' which tells the agent when to act and implicitly when not to. It does not name alternative tools (e.g., get_interview or list_interviews) for adjacent needs, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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