assign_interview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose important behavioral constraints: permission requirements and the need for exact interview confirmation. However, it does not describe side effects, return behavior, or the optional rejection-workflow semantics hinted at by the responsible_id parameter.

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, with the purpose front-loaded and the key requirements in the second sentence. There is no filler or redundant content; every word 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves comment and profile unexplained, does not clarify the optional responsible_id/rejection workflow, and gives no indication of success or error behavior.

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 only 40%, and the description adds only minimal meaning beyond the schema: 'another responsible user' and 'exact interview confirmation.' It does not explain the comment or profile parameters, and the phrasing conflicts somewhat with responsible_id being optional.

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 action ('Reassign'), a clear resource ('an interview'), and the target ('another responsible user'). It is clear and distinct enough to identify the operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like assign_interview_supervisor.

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 mentions required permissions and exact interview confirmation, but it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as assign_interview_supervisor or assign_assignment. No alternatives, exclusions, or workflow conditions are provided.

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