delete_interview_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the action 'Delete' without elaborating on consequences such as permanent removal, cascading effects on associated data, permission requirements, or reversibility. This is a core gap for a mutating operation.

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, direct sentence with no superfluous words. The essential action is stated clearly and completely for a tool of this simplicity. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, once again satisfying conciseness requirements.

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 delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits any information about side effects, required permissions, or whether the deletion is irreversible, which would be valuable for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Given the lack of annotations, this is a notable gap.

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 single parameter template_id is a UUID field with 0% schema description coverage. The description makes no mention of it, but the parameter name and type are self-explanatory. Since it is the only parameter and its purpose is obvious, the lack of explicit description is acceptable, though it does not add any value beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb 'Delete' and a specific resource 'interview template', which is exactly the tool's purpose. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like update_interview_template and list_interview_templates, as deletion is a unique action among them. No ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any context for selection. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or that it should not be used in certain scenarios. The description is purely a statement of action, leaving usage decisions entirely to the agent's inference.

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