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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description does not explain what destructive action occurs—whether generation replaces existing competencies, appends to them, or requires cleared state. Saying 'generate from confirmed outcomes' adds only an input condition, not behavioral consequence. No contradiction exists, but the description fails to add meaningful behavioral context beyond 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It communicates the core action and the key input source efficiently. It loses one point because the extreme brevity comes at the cost of needed behavioral and parameter detail, but as prose it is appropriately tight.

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 tool with five parameters, nested input objects, zero schema descriptions, a destructive annotation, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is inadequate. The agent is left without enough information to construct a valid request, understand side effects, or interpret results. This is comparable to the lowest calibration cases.

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%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It only hints at 'confirmed outcomes,' which loosely maps to outcome_ids or source_stage, but it does not explain instructions, source_stage.version, the interview_plan_draft resource type/id pattern, or the required action constant. This is far too little compensation for five undocumented parameters, including nested objects.

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 verb-resource pair ('generate draft interview-plan competencies') and adds a source constraint ('from confirmed outcomes'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like add_competencies, update_competencies, and generate_skills. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with adjacent generate or manual-add tools, so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The phrase 'from confirmed outcomes' implies a prerequisite (outcomes must already be confirmed), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus add_competencies, update_competencies, clear_competencies, or generate_skills. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer the intended workflow.

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