yardstick_interview_plan_drafts_add_roundsAdd interview rounds to a draft exactly as written — deterministic, no AI generation. Requires skills; the resulting sequence must stay within 20 rounds. Optional source_stage {stage: interview_sequence, version} returns 409 when stale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| resource | Yes | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations, it discloses key behavior: no AI generation, the skills prerequisite, the hard 20-round sequence limit, and the 409 stale response when source_stage.version is outdated. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs and annotations do not provide.
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 one dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action and deterministic behavior come first, followed by prerequisite, limit, and concurrency behavior.
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 key constraints, prerequisite, and stale-error behavior are covered, which is most of what an agent needs to invoke this mutating tool correctly. There is no output schema and the description does not state the response shape, and the many items fields are left unexplained, so completeness has clear gaps.
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 0%, yet the description only explains source_stage's stale-version behavior and the sequence limit. It does not explain what belongs in items, what fields like duration, recommendedQuestionCount, or interviewerGuidance mean, or how required action/resource should be filled. The description does not compensate for the schema's missing descriptions.
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 action ('Add interview rounds to a draft exactly as written') on a specific resource (interview plan draft) and immediately distinguishes it from AI-generation tools by saying 'deterministic, no AI generation'. This clearly separates it from siblings like generate_rounds without requiring schema inspection.
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?
It gives a clear context: use when you have exact rounds to add deterministically, requires skills, and must respect a 20-round resulting sequence. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state 'do not use generate_rounds', but the deterministic/no-AI contrast provides a usable routing signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.