create_interview_prep

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals the tool creates a 'private' scaffold, implying access control, and that it depends on factual highlights. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or what 'scaffold' entails in terms of behavior or output.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and purpose. No wasted words, and the structure is straightforward.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain what the scaffold looks like, how application_id is used, or what the return value is. It only states the input and action, leaving significant gaps for a creation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It directly mentions 'factual highlights', which helps clarify that parameter, but 'application_id' is never addressed. The description only partially maps to the parameters, leaving the second parameter under-defined.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('interview-preparation scaffold'), and the input source ('factual highlights') adds clarity. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_application or analyse_application_fit.

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 phrase 'from factual highlights' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when you have factual highlights and need interview prep. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection.

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