delete_interview

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two most important traits: this is a write operation and it 'cannot be undone'. That is real destructive-behavior disclosure beyond a bare verb. It still omits permission requirements and side effects (candidate notification, fate of attached scorecards/feedback), 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences: the action and its irreversibility come first, the ID-sourcing hint second. Nothing is padding, and the most decision-relevant fact (cannot be undone) is not buried.

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 no explanation, and the single-parameter surface is fully covered. The description supplies purpose, destructiveness, and ID sourcing. The remaining gap is a subtle naming mismatch — the tool is delete_interview but the description says 'cancel', leaving the agent unsure whether the record is removed or merely marked cancelled.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds actionable meaning: it tells the agent that interview_id is the scheduled interview ID and, more importantly, how to obtain one via list_interviews_for_application on the candidate's application. That is genuinely useful retrieval guidance rather than restating the schema.

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 and resource ('Cancel a scheduled interview') and is immediately distinguishable from sibling read/write interview tools like get_interview, list_interviews, or update_interview. It also names a sibling (list_interviews_for_application) so the agent can place the tool in the workflow.

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?

Clearly conveys when to reach for this tool (cancelling a scheduled interview) and gives an explicit path for sourcing the required ID via list_interviews_for_application. It stops short of naming the alternative for non-destructive changes (e.g., update_interview to reschedule instead of cancel), so there are no explicit exclusions.

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