reschedule_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 behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects (e.g., whether participants are notified, whether the old time is freed), required permissions, idempotency, or constraints like rescheduling within a valid window. The term 'room' adds ambiguity about what is altered.

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 single sentence is extremely concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It front-loads the action but omits essential context. The brevity fails to earn its place because it does not clarify the tool's role among a large sibling set or address key usage questions.

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?

Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what a successful reschedule returns, what happens to the old interview, whether there are state restrictions, or how to handle errors. For an agent to correctly invoke it, more information is needed.

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 50% (only scheduled_at has a description). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail; it never mentions room_id or scheduled_at. Since half the parameters lack schema descriptions, the description should compensate but does not, leaving agents to guess what 'room_id' represents (likely an interview identifier) and how the datetime is formatted beyond ISO 8601.

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 specific verb ('Reschedule') and resource ('interview room'), making the core purpose clear. However, 'room' is an unusual term that could mean an interview slot or a physical room, and it is not explicitly tied to the sibling set. It differentiates from cancel/create but requires inference to understand it changes the existing interview's scheduled time.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cancel_interview or create_interview. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., must be an existing interview, cannot be past) or provide exclusion criteria. The description implies usage only through the verb 'reschedule'.

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