Record interview feedback by saving the interview date and your notes for a job application, so each interview's outcome and impressions stay logged for review.
Record interview feedback: the interview date (YYYY-MM-DD) plus your notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | Yes | ||
| app_id | Yes | ||
| date_str | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Record' but never states whether this creates a new feedback entry or overwrites an existing one, whether it is reversible, or whether the referenced application must exist — key facts for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage. The only real behavioral detail added is the date format.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the date format is surfaced immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than economy.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description leaves out app_id, overwrite/append behavior, and any usage context. An agent could not confidently construct the call from this text alone.
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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It documents date_str's format (YYYY-MM-DD) and gestures at notes, but completely omits app_id, the identifier that determines which application receives the feedback.
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?
Names a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('interview feedback'), so the agent can distinguish it from siblings like add_application or add_contact. However, it never mentions that the feedback is attached to an application, which is the tool's most important scoping fact.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus add_application, update_application, or set_status, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. the application must already exist, or an interview must have occurred). The agent must infer the workflow context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.