ats_schedule_interview

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, but the description states 'permanent removal' for delete actions, which is a direct contradiction. Additionally, no other behavioral traits such as auth requirements or rate limits are disclosed.

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 concise at two sentences, covering all key aspects. It is front-loaded with the core function ('Full CRUD for interviews'). Minor improvement could be structuring the actions list for readability.

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 complexity of CRUD with multiple actions and nested objects, the description covers the main operations and parameters. It lacks details on return values (no output schema), but conflict detection guidance adds context.

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 description adds value beyond the schema by summarizing action structures and clarifying the purpose of existingInterviews for conflict checks. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the contextual hint elevates the score.

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's function as 'Full CRUD for interviews' and lists specific actions (create, update, delete, list, get). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ats_interview_feedback.

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 provides guidance on conflict detection ('Pass existing interviews record for conflict checks') and enumerates filters for the list action. However, it does not explicitly specify when to avoid using this tool or when to prefer alternatives.

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