Record an interview answer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the answer is saved verbatim or faithfully summarized, and that certain responses trigger agent-decision marking in the blueprint. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. No redundancy.

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 simple save operation with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the target (planning interview question), specifies the data to save, and explains the consequence for skip/you decide. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions (answer and questionId). The description adds significant semantics for the answer parameter, instructing the agent to record actual words and handle skip/you decide. It does not elaborate on projectId or questionId, but those are self-explanatory from their names and the hint about get_next_questions.

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 clearly states the tool saves the USER's answer to a planning interview question, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_next_questions or log_event. It also specifies the exact recording behavior for 'skip' or 'you decide'.

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 description implies when to use this tool—whenever the user provides an answer during a planning interview. It also provides guidance on how to handle non-answers ('skip' or 'you decide'), which is a form of usage instruction. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear.

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