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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real context: the withdrawal removes the interview from public archives and record pages. However, it never says whether the action is reversible, whether the underlying record is deleted or merely hidden, or what happens on an invalid token.

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, no filler, and the effect (removal from public archives) is front-loaded right after the core action. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema parameter documentation, the description gives the headline outcome but omits reversibility, error behavior, and parameter detail. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that interview_token is a private/secret token used to authorize the withdrawal, which adds meaning beyond the bare string types, but it says nothing about interview_id's format or relationship to the token.

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 (withdraw) and resource (interview) plus the mechanism (private token), and describes the effect on public archives and record pages. It is clearly distinguishable from interview_publish and interview_read by implication, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites beyond holding a token, and no exclusion or alternative such as 'to re-list, use interview_publish'. The agent must infer the usage context.

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