assign_interview_supervisor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does add behavioral context by requiring fieldwork_write/admin_write and exact interview confirmation, which signals a mutating, safety-sensitive operation. However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, failure behavior, or what happens to the existing assignment/supervisor relationship.

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 a single dense sentence that packs action, conditional support, permission requirements, and safety confirmation with no repetition of the tool name or schema. Every clause 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 mutating tool with no output schema, no annotations, and five parameters, the description is too thin. It does not explain several parameters, return behavior, side effects, or how the agent should distinguish this from assign_interview and other supervisor/interview tools. The available schema descriptions only partially fill the gap.

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 does not compensate. It references 'exact interview confirmation' aligning with confirm_interview_id, but it adds no meaning for comment, profile, interview_id, or responsible_id beyond what the schema already states. The schema itself covers responsible_id and confirm_interview_id, leaving other parameters under-explained.

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 uses a specific verb 'Reassign' with a clear resource 'interview' and adds the qualifier 'at supervisor level', which helps distinguish it from the generic assign_interview sibling. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling tool, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 gives useful context: this is a supervisor-level reassignment supported only by the active Headquarters build, and it states required permissions. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over assign_interview or other assignment-related tools, nor does it state when not to use it.

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