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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions DELETE, implying destructiveness, but does not state irreversibility, side effects, or any required confirmation. No additional context is provided beyond the endpoint.

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 efficient sentence that leads with the endpoint path, containing no extraneous wording. However, it is so concise that it lacks substantive detail, though the structure itself is clean.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the impact of deleting an interview, leaving the agent to infer the tool's contract from the endpoint alone.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The path template adds slight value by mapping record_id to the interviews/:record segment, but the description does not elaborate on parameter usage or relationships beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the HTTP DELETE method and targeted resource (opportunity interviews) via the path template, but essentially restates the tool name. It does not provide a functional definition like 'Deletes a specific interview from an opportunity' or distinguish itself from other delete tools beyond the resource name.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_opportunity_interview or delete_opportunity_panel. The phrase 'for recruiting operations' is too generic and does not indicate scenarios where deletion is appropriate.

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