hq_unapprove_interview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a 'live mutation,' specifies required permissions, and warns about confirmation and precondition checks. This is strong disclosure, though it does not describe side effects or reversibility beyond the state move.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The action, permission requirement, safety warning, and precondition are all front-loaded and clearly separated. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 invocation context: purpose, permissions, confirmation requirement, and a precondition. It is slightly incomplete regarding optional parameters and behavior on mismatch, but the core agent decision path is well supported.

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 25%, so the description must compensate. It reinforces the critical confirm_interview_id requirement ('exact interview ID confirmation'), but it does not explain the interview_id, comment, or profile parameters. The description adds safety context but leaves several parameters undocumented.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Move an HQ-approved interview out of HQ approved state.' This precisely defines the tool's state-transition purpose and differentiates it from related approval/rejection siblings by naming the specific state change.

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 actionable guidance: requires specific permissions, requires exact interview ID confirmation, and says 'read current status first and use only on a known target case.' It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the preconditions and targeting advice make when-to-use clear.

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