Request Phone Interview

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it labels the operation as a mutation, discloses the confirm gate, and warns that an email message and SMS notification may be sent as side effects. It stops short of stating permission requirements, whether the invitation can be revoked, or what happens on duplicate invitations.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then required fields/encoding, then the mutation gate. Every clause carries operational information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a free-form nested body, the description covers the essentials (required IDs, encoding, confirm) but says nothing about the response shape, failure modes, or what other body fields are permitted. Adequate to invoke, incomplete for confident use.

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 0% and the body is an unconstrained nested object, so the description is the only source of meaning — it usefully names resume_id and vacancy_id as required and specifies form-encoding per the vendor spec. It still leaves the rest of the body (message text, other optional fields) undocumented, so the compensation is partial.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Invite an applicant to a vacancy by resume') and then names the underlying entity created ('an invitation negotiation'), plus the optional email/SMS side effects. That is enough to separate it from siblings like update_negotiation, move_negotiation, or send_chat_message without opening a schema.

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 intended scenario (inviting an applicant to a vacancy) is implied clearly by the opening clause, and a concrete prerequisite is stated ('requires confirm=True'). However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is offered, so the agent must infer routing from the sibling list.

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