Log interview

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly and non-destructive. Description adds side-effect context: 'keeps the application's next-interview date in sync.' No contradiction. Lacks details on authentication or rate limits but sufficient for a simple creation tool.

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 focused sentences plus example. Front-loaded with action and constraint. Every sentence adds value: purpose, fields, side effect, example. No fluff.

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?

Covers inputs, behavior, and side effect. No output schema, but description adequate. Could mention max limit enforcement or error cases, but overall complete for a mutation tool.

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?

Input schema has 83% description coverage. Description adds meaning by enumerating fields (scheduled_at, status, attendees, links, recap) and providing an example. Clarifies 'status' enum and 'profile link' optionality, supplementing schema.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Log' and resource 'interview for an application', includes max limit (10 per application), lists key fields, and provides a concrete example. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'add_note' or 'attach_analysis'.

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?

States clear purpose and constraint ('max 10 per application'). While no explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, the context signals show distinct sibling tools, and the description implies when to invoke (recording an interview). Could be improved with 'use this instead of...' but still clear.

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