hires_create_interview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavior—location auto-resolution/creation—but does not mention permissions, side effects of scheduling, conflict handling, or response shape. For a create operation this is a meaningful gap.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the most important input constraints. No filler or redundant content.

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 description is adequate for basic invocation given the rich schema, but lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., application must exist), potential errors, or response behavior. Since there is no output schema, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces that start/end times are Unix timestamps and interviewer_ids is a list, but this largely restates the existing schema descriptions rather than adding new semantics.

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?

Uses a specific verb 'Schedule' and resource 'interview' for an application, clearly distinguishing this creation tool from sibling read tools like hires_list_interviews and hires_get_interview.

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?

Clearly conveys when to use it (to schedule a new interview) and identifies the essential inputs (Unix timestamps and interviewer IDs). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but no alternative create-interview tool exists among siblings.

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