cancel_interview

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that cancellation is asynchronous, tears down calendar events, and dispatches notifications. It also mentions specific error codes. Could mention more about reversibility or permissions, but sufficient for basic transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value—no wasted words. Highly concise and effective.

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 simple tool with 1 param and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, key constraints, and behavioral effects (async, error states). No gaps.

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% (1 param described as 'Interview ID'). Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Cancel a scheduled interview' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by listing what cannot be canceled (already-cancelled or completed HackerRank interviews), and explains the effects (tear down calendars, async notifications).

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 specifies when the tool can be used (scheduled interviews) and when it cannot (already-cancelled, completed HackerRank). However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., checking status first), though the context is clear.

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