schedule_interview

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool previews by default and only writes when confirm=true and writes are enabled. This is a key behavioral trait, though it omits other side effects like idempotency or error cases.

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 very short (one sentence), which is front-loaded with purpose and key condition. However, it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters, one being a complex nested object.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and a nested body object, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter descriptions, return value details, error states, and context relative to sibling tools.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains the confirm parameter's role, but provides no information about the interview_id (required) or the body (required nested object with additionalProperties), leaving significant ambiguity.

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 it schedules an interview, using the verb 'schedule' and resource 'interview'. It distinguishes from siblings like reschedule_interview and cancel_interview, but the conditional preview behavior adds slight ambiguity.

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 only explains when the preview vs actual write occurs via the confirm parameter, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like reschedule_interview or list_interviews.

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