share_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, required permissions (e.g., whether the interviewer/owner must have specific roles), reversibility, or the behavior of the expiration parameter (expires_days). This is insufficient for a tool that likely creates a persistent or time-limited access artifact.

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 concise, consisting of a single front-loaded sentence that establishes the purpose. However, it is under-specified for a tool with two parameters and no annotations; it is appropriately concise but not appropriately sized to convey necessary usage information. It could benefit from a second sentence on parameters or behavior without becoming verbose.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description must provide enough context for an agent to successfully call the tool. It fails to clarify the meaning of expires_days, what the shareable report contains, or any access control considerations. An agent would be uncertain about required parameters' semantics and potential side effects, making the tool risky to invoke correctly.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It mentions neither room_id nor expires_days, nor their semantic meaning (e.g., which interview, how expiration works). The schema gives type and format but no business logic, leaving the agent to guess the value of expires_days (e.g., number of days until link expiry). This is a critical omission.

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 ('Create') and resource ('shareable report link') for a 'completed interview', making the tool's intent clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle interviews, assessments, invites, etc., as there is no other sharing-focused tool. However, it lacks detail on what the report link contains, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides minimal context that the interview must be 'completed', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites or restrictions. There is no mention of expiration or permission requirements, leaving the agent without guidance on appropriate invocation conditions.

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