delete_interview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a delete operation, names the required permission level, requires exact confirmation of the interview ID, and notes that support depends on the active Headquarters build. This goes well beyond a simple 'Delete an interview' statement.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the safety requirements, and the usage restriction. No filler or repetition.

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 tool with no annotations and low schema coverage, the description covers permissions, confirmation, and test-only usage, which is good. However, it leaves the optional comment and profile parameters unexplained and does not clarify what happens when the active Headquarters build does not support deletion.

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 only 25%, and the description does not compensate. 'Exact interview confirmation' adds little beyond the schema's own confirm_interview_id description, and the optional comment and profile parameters are left completely unexplained.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Delete an interview'. It is clear and distinct from siblings such as list_interviews or approve_interview, though it does not explicitly name any sibling for differentiation and adds a conditional caveat about the active Headquarters build.

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 gives clear context: requires fieldwork_write/admin_write, requires exact interview confirmation, and 'Use only on throwaway/test cases' is an explicit when-not condition. It does not name an alternative tool for production deletions, but the restriction is strong and practical.

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