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

The annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent, but the description adds important behavioral context beyond them: it deletes not only the test but also every candidate's answers. It does not explicitly state irreversibility or permission requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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 extremely concise and front-loads the action. The cascade effect is stated immediately, and "Free" adds a relevant business detail without burying the core meaning.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the definition is nearly complete. The key data-loss scope is disclosed, though an explicit "permanent and cannot be undone" warning 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 coverage is 100%, and the single parameter is already well documented as the test slug from hiring_list_assessments. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Delete a test." It also clarifies scope by saying every candidate's answers are included, which helps distinguish this from assessment read/list tools. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.

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 does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hiring_save_assessment, hiring_list_assessments, or hiring_assessment_results. The delete action implies usage, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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