hq_reject_interview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It clearly labels the operation as a 'Live mutation' and adds permission and confirmation requirements. It does not discuss reversibility or downstream effects, but the critical behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The action, permissions, safety requirement, and workflow guidance are packed efficiently.

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 five parameters and no output schema, this covers the essential prerequisites, safety check, and recommended workflow. It omits what happens on success or error and the optional profile parameter, but these are secondary to correctly invoking the tool.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for interview_id via 'exact interview ID confirmation' and for comment via 'include a clear comment', and responsible_id is already described in the schema. However, the profile parameter is not explained, and the imperative 'include a clear comment' sits awkwardly with comment being optional in the 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?

States the specific action 'Reject an interview' with the actor 'as Headquarters', which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling reject_interview tool and the approve/unapprove variants. The verb, resource, and actor are all explicit.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use the tool: it requires fieldwork_write or admin_write permission, exact interview ID confirmation, a clear comment, and reading current status first. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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