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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the operation itself — no mention of irreversibility, cascading effects on associated data, or auth requirements. It does not contradict the 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?

A single seven-word sentence with zero filler. The core verb and scoping qualifier are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 destructive operation with no output schema, the combination is adequate but thin: annotations flag destructiveness, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, the description does not state what happens to the interview's associated data or whether deletion is reversible, which would matter to an agent weighing side effects.

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 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters richly — especially team_id, which explains the API-key pinning vs OAuth multi-team behavior in detail. The description adds no parameter-level information, but at full schema coverage the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a precise resource ('team-level Clarity interview'). The 'team-level' qualifier effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like deleteClarityOrganizationInterview and deleteClarityLandscapeNodeInterview, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 'team-level' scope implies when the tool applies, giving a basic sense of usage context. However, no alternatives are named and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., required permissions, inability to delete org-level interviews) are stated, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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