hq_approve_interview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a 'Live mutation,' warns to 'read current status first,' states required permissions, and flags that returned state/audit fields vary by build. This gives an agent concrete behavioral expectations for a side-effecting operation.

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 tight and well-structured: action first, then permissions, then behavioral warnings. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 covers the essential operational context: who can call it, what to check first, and what kind of output variability to expect. It is slightly incomplete because comment and profile parameters are never explained, and sibling-tool routing is absent.

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 25%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented comment and profile parameters. It reinforces the 'exact interview ID confirmation' requirement for confirm_interview_id, but that is already stated in the schema, so little additional meaning is added beyond that.

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 and resource: 'Approve an interview as Headquarters.' It adds role and permission context that goes beyond the tool name, but it does not explicitly contrast with the closely related sibling approve_interview, so differentiation is left mostly to the phrase 'as Headquarters.'

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 implies the usage context: an HQ user with fieldwork_write or admin_write permission performing a live approval after reading current status. However, it never states when not to use this tool or points to alternatives like approve_interview or hq_unapprove_interview.

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