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. It does disclose that this is a 'Live mutation', requires permissions, and advises reading current status first. However, it does not describe the side effects of rejection, reversibility, or what the response looks like, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 no filler: the purpose is front-loaded, followed by permission, confirmation, and usage guidance. Every phrase earns its place and the structure is easy to parse.

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 key requirements like permissions and confirmation, but it omits what happens after rejection, possible preconditions for valid status, and any return/result information. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 some value by reinforcing 'exact interview ID confirmation' and advising a clear comment. It does not explain the 'profile' parameter and only partially compensates for the undocumented parameters, though responsible_id is already well covered 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Reject'), a clear resource ('an interview'), and an actor ('as supervisor'), which distinguishes it from generic rejection tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling hq_reject_interview beyond the supervisor hint, so it falls just short of a top score.

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?

It gives clear context for use: supervisor-level rejection, required permissions, and an instruction to read current status first. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to an alternative such as hq_reject_interview, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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