create_interview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action 'Create' without mentioning whether invites are sent (e.g., send_invite parameter), whether it returns a created interview object, or any side effects like scheduling or email notifications. The agent has no idea what happens after calling the tool.

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 extremely concise, a single sentence, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks essential information about parameters and behavior, so the sentence does not earn its place by being informative. The structure is minimal and not front-loaded with useful context.

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?

With nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain the meaning or usage of any parameters, does not indicate what a 'live interview room' includes, and offers no guidance on required fields or optional behavior. An agent would be unable to correctly invoke this tool without external knowledge.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning to any of the nine parameters. It does not mention titles, candidate emails, scheduling, or interviewer modes. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving agents to guess parameter semantics.

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 the verb 'Create' and the resource 'live interview room', which clearly indicates the tool creates an interview. It distinguishes from bulk creation (bulk_create_interviews) by implying a single live session, but does not elaborate on what 'live interview room' entails. The purpose is clear enough but could be more specific about the interview type or scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bulk_create_interviews, create_invite, or update_interview_template. The description provides no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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