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

The description is consistent with annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) but adds no extra behavioral context. It does not explain consequences such as whether removing the interviewer affects scheduling, availability, or the interview plan. While the annotation flags destructiveness, the description could clarify the scope of the removal but does not.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the action and gets straight to the point, making it easy to parse.

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 definition lacks essential context for a destructive operation. It does not mention return values (though no output schema exists), side effects, reversibility, or how it differs from cancelling the session. Given four parameters with no schema descriptions, the description is too terse to fully equip an agent.

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%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. The required parameters (interview_session_id, interviewer_user_id) are self-explanatory, but optional ones like idempotency_key and request_id are left undefined. With zero coverage, the description should at least mention the purpose of key parameters, but it does not.

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 'Unassign an interviewer from an interview session' clearly states the specific verb (unassign) and resource (interview session), making it immediately distinguishable from its sibling 'yardstick_interview_sessions_interviewers_assign'. The title reinforces this by naming the exact action.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that this is the inverse of the assign tool, nor does it differentiate from other session actions like cancel or complete. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for complex workflows.

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