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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-readonly, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context: the application moves to interviewing, the round number defaults to the next, and the round is recorded as a fact. It does not cover duplicate handling or permission requirements, but it meaningfully supplements the 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 short, front-loaded, and structured around purpose, defaults, and effects. Every sentence contributes useful information without 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the key side effect and round-number behavior. Some parameter-level details and duplicate-prevention behavior are absent, but the essential context for correct invocation is present.

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 67%, with kind and notes lacking schema descriptions. The description only clarifies the round default, which is already stated in the schema, and does not explain the missing kind or notes parameters. This is adequate but does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Record a scheduled round,' and states the resulting state transition to interviewing. It clearly separates recording a scheduled round from recording an outcome, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like hunt_interview_outcome.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Record a scheduled round,' but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative tools. An agent can infer the context, but must still determine on its own when to prefer this over hunt_interview_outcome or hunt_set_application_status.

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