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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as whether updates are partial, what happens on missing records, or any side effects. It fails to add value over the structured annotations.

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, terse sentence that front-loads the core action without any wasted words. It is efficient and concise, though it sacrifices depth for brevity. This is acceptable for a tool whose schema conveys the details.

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?

The tool has many optional parameters, but the schema fully documents them. The description implies that the interview must already exist ('existing') but does not mention any preconditions or constraints, such as whether fields can be updated independently. Given that an output schema exists and the input schema is thorough, the description is minimally sufficient but not richly contextual.

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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for all 14 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description contributes no additional meaning to the parameters, relying entirely on the schema. With such high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear action and resource ('Update an existing interview') with no ambiguity. The word 'existing' hints at modification rather than creation, which loosely differentiates it from jobs.interviews.add. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or describe what fields are updatable, relying on the schema.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus jobs.interviews.add or jobs.interviews.delete. The description only states the operation, leaving the agent to infer that it is for modifying existing records. It lacks any conditions, alternatives, or exclusions.

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