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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial beyond them: what exactly is destroyed (questions, answers, feedback, public share link), that a retry survives with its link cleared, the 'not_found'/ownership-scoping behavior, and that it consumes no quota and refunds none.

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?

Front-loaded with the irreversible-delete fact, then error semantics, alternative routing, and quota behavior in tight clauses. Every sentence earns its place; density is high but nothing is redundant or padded.

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 not be re-explained), yet the description still pins the two failure codes and ownership scope. Combined with destinations, alternatives, and quota effects, an agent has everything needed to call this safely.

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?

With a single required parameter and (per the reported) 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden but only partially: it reinforces the ARCHIVED constraint and tells the agent where to find a valid id via get_interview_results(archived=true). It adds no format/syntax detail, which is acceptable for a plain id but leaves the compensation partial.

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 (permanently delete) and resource (an ARCHIVED mock interview) with explicit scope, and immediately contrasts with the sibling archive_interview. An agent can tell exactly what this does versus 'archive' or 'remove' without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly covers the when-not case (returns 'not_archived' if still active; archive it first, 'which is what the user usually means by remove it') and names the alternative tool. It also routes the agent to get_interview_results(archived=true) to obtain a valid id. Nothing is left to inference.

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