schedule_interview

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only specifies date/time formats but omits critical behavioral traits like whether it sends notifications, checks for conflicts, or requires specific permissions. This is insufficient for an API that likely performs side effects.

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 sentences with front-loaded action verb. Every word serves a purpose. No unnecessary repetition or irrelevant details.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters (4 required), no annotations, and an output schema. The description only addresses 2 parameters' formats and ignores the rest. It does not explain the overall effect (e.g., creates a calendar event, updates system). Given the complexity, the description is incomplete.

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 compensate. It only explains the format for 'date' and 'time', leaving 'candidate_id', 'interviewer', 'meeting_link', 'interview_name', and 'duration_minutes' unexplained. While date/time format is helpful, most parameters lack semantic context.

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 'Schedule an interview' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_interview_schedule (read-only) and submit_interview_feedback (post-interview action), though not explicitly. The verb+resource combination is specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only states what it does without context on appropriate scenarios.

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