ats_interview_feedback

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is a mutating operation but not destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the listed actions, such as prerequisites, side effects, or constraints (e.g., that submit requires a completed interview).

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 a single, concise paragraph that front-loads the tool's purpose and lists actions without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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 tool with seven sub-operations and a nested input schema, the description provides only high-level action names. Since there is no output schema, the description does not explain return values or behavior, leaving the agent with incomplete information for selection and invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for the 'interviews' and 'action' parameters; it simply lists possible action types without elaborating on their structure or usage.

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 'Manage interview feedback in the ATS' and lists seven specific actions (submit, get, update, list_pending, list_completed, analyze, summary), providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools which focus on resumes, candidates, jobs, etc.

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 usage contexts through the listed actions (e.g., list_pending for awaiting feedback), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or which action to select. No exclusions or when-not-to-use information is given.

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