mark_candidate_no_show

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses the scorecard submission constraint but does not specify side effects, permissions, or state changes beyond the name. Adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: purpose, condition, and exclusion are covered. Missing details on error handling or success feedback, but acceptable given tool simplicity.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description ('Interview ID'). The description adds context by linking the parameter to the interview state (in_progress/ended). Adds value beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Mark the candidate as a no-show'), specifies the target resource (interview) with conditions (in_progress or ended), and includes an exclusion (scorecard submitted). Differentiates from sibling tools like 'undo_candidate_no_show'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (in_progress or ended interview) and when not to use (scorecard submitted). Provides actionable constraints that help an agent decide correctly.

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