Move to an interview phase

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations: the change is candidate-visible on a tracker, i.e. it has a UI side effect. It omits ordering prerequisites and whether advancing a phase affects scoring or the transcript.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the effect first, then the allowed values. The inline label repetition ('wrap-up (Wrap-up)') is slightly redundant but costs little.

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 one-required-param mutation on a well-annotated tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, target state and allowed values. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does partially by expanding enum tokens into human labels ('api' -> 'API & Data', 'high-level' -> 'High-level'). However, the mapping is terse and adds little beyond the enum values themselves, and nothing is said about whether the phase must progress in order or can jump backward.

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 ('Update') and resource ('the phase tracker the candidate sees'), and enumerates the six phase values, so the effect is unmistakable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with start_interview or end_interview, which are the obvious adjacent lifecycle siblings.

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: an agent can infer this is called mid-interview to advance the candidate-visible phase, but the description never says when to call it, whether it must follow start_interview, or what to do instead if the interview has not started.

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