Permanently delete an interview from a job. Confirm with the user first; it cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Job id | |
| confirmed | Yes | Must be true after the user confirms permanent deletion | |
| interview_id | Yes | Interview id |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | Human-readable confirmation of the action |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the critical detail 'cannot be undone' (reinforcing permanence) and mandates user confirmation, both of which go beyond the structured annotations.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and permanence, then adds the confirmation requirement—every clause contributes.
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 3-parameter delete operation with annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior and an output schema present, the description provides all necessary context: action, permanence, and confirmation requirement. It could optionally note alternatives, but that is not essential for correct invocation.
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 schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including the confirmed field's purpose. The description essentially restates the confirmation requirement already in the schema, adding no new parameter-level meaning.
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 ('Permanently delete') and identifies the exact resource ('an interview from a job'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like jobs.interviews.add and jobs.interviews.update by emphasizing irreversibility.
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 instruction 'Confirm with the user first' provides a clear condition for when to invoke the tool, effectively guiding the agent to only call it after user confirmation. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives, the permanent deletion context makes the appropriate situation obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
