submit_interview_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool can create or update records based on `interview_id`, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting behavior), error states, authentication needs, or what happens on success. The description lacks sufficient behavioral detail for a tool with no annotations.

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 with two sentences, each adding distinct value. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses backticks to highlight parameter names, improving readability. No redundant or extraneous information is present.

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 description covers the tool's main action and key parameter behaviors, but for a tool with 6 parameters (5 required) and an output schema, it omits critical details like the rating scale, feedback format, and success response. The output schema exists but is not described, so agents may lack context on return values. Overall, it meets basic needs but has notable gaps.

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?

The description adds meaning to two parameters: `recommendation` (typical values) and `interview_id` (use to update). The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description partly compensates. However, it does not explain `rating`, `feedback`, `interviewer`, or `candidate_id`. More parameter-specific guidance would be beneficial.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Submit interview feedback.' It also specifies the typical values for `recommendation` (Hire/No Hire/Hold), adding specificity. The tool name itself is unambiguous, and the sibling tools are distinct (e.g., schedule_interview, interview_summary_generator), so no confusion arises.

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 some context on when to use the tool: it can create or update feedback via the `interview_id` parameter. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool. More guidance on prerequisites or differentiation from similar tools (e.g., interview_summary_generator) would improve this score.

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