schedule_interview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful context about the medium (voice, Google Meet) and duration, but says nothing about side effects, whether re-scheduling replaces a prior booking, or auth requirements.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the input flexibility. Every clause carries information; zero padding.

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 4-param, no-required, no-output-schema scheduling tool, the description adequately conveys the action and the accepted time inputs. It is slightly thin on post-scheduling expectations (confirmation, link delivery) and parameter interaction, but nothing essential to making the call is missing.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description restates the time-specification options at a high level but adds no format or precedence detail (e.g., what happens if both 'now' and 'datetime' are supplied) beyond 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 a specific verb (schedule) and resource (interview), plus distinguishing detail: a 5-10 minute voice interview with the Fodda AI interviewer on Google Meet. No sibling tool competes for this action, but the description is self-sufficient and unambiguous about what it does.

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 explains the three input modes (ISO datetime, human-readable local time, instant now), which implicitly tells the agent how to invoke it, but it gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance or prerequisites (e.g., whether an account or onboarding is required first).

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