Log an interview for a job
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Interview name, e.g. phone screen, technical, behavioral, onsite | |
| notes | No | Notes or debrief from the interview | |
| job_id | Yes | Job id | |
| location | No | Location or meeting link | |
| scheduled_at | No | ISO 8601 date/time with timezone |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| meta | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, and idempotentHint false, which align with the 'Log' action implying a non-destructive write. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., side effects, auth needs, or validation). Consistent with annotations but contributes minimal additional value.
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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple CRUD-style operation and front-loads the core intent.
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 add tool with a full schema and an output schema present, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention that a valid job_id is required (though schema marks it required), nor does it clarify the relationship with 'jobs.interviews.update' for modifications. Given the schema richness, this is acceptable but leaves room for more context.
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% – all five parameters have descriptive text in the schema (e.g., 'Interview name', 'Notes or debrief', 'ISO 8601 date/time with timezone'). The description provides no parameter-specific elaboration, so baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents each parameter.
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 clearly states the action ('Log') and the resource ('an interview for a job'), and the tool name 'add' distinguishes it from its siblings 'delete' and 'update'. However, it does not explicitly reference those siblings, leaving the differentiation to be inferred from the naming convention.
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. There is no mention of 'use when creating a new interview' or 'use update to modify an existing one'. The sibling tools exist but are not referenced, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
