End the interview with feedback

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates local state non-destructively. The description adds that it closes the session and renders a feedback card, which is useful context, but it does not say whether closing is reversible, what happens to the session transcript, or what validation failures look like.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence is largely redundant with the schema's min/max and could be cut, but there is no padding or bloat beyond that.

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?

This is a nested-object, 5-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, so it needs more than two sentences. It conveys the user-visible outcome (a feedback card appears) but says nothing about the narrative fields the caller must supply (strengths, improvements, summary format) beyond the schema's own hints.

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?

Coverage is 60%, and the only parameter-related sentence, 'Scores are 1-5,' merely restates the schema's minimum/maximum constraints. The description adds nothing about the required summary, strengths, or improvements arrays (both capped at 6 items with no schema descriptions), leaving real gaps for the caller.

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+resource: 'Close the session and show a feedback card on the board.' An agent can distinguish this terminal action from start_interview or say without opening the schema. It does not explicitly name a sibling or exclusions, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Usage is only implied – 'Close the session' suggests it is the final step of an interview flow, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an active interview must exist), and no reference to alternatives like set_phase.

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