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

Annotations already declare that this mutates state, is destructive, and is idempotent. The description adds the account/workspace prerequisite and stage-routing constraints, but it does not explain what the destructive effect is, such as whether the current stage is overwritten or whether the move can be reversed.

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 front-loaded with the primary use case, then adds the stage-specific exceptions, prerequisites, and exclusion. It is dense but every sentence contributes routing or constraint 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 three-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the main usage, alternatives, prerequisites, and exclusion. The remaining gap is that it does not explain the practical consequence of the destructive stage change, though annotations signal that behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds lifecycle meaning for stage values, including when qualifying, watching, submitted, won, and lost apply, and routes bidding/no_bid to record_bid_call; tender_reference and workspace are already well documented in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: changing where a tender stands in the Winquill pipeline. It clearly distinguishes this tool from record_bid_call for bidding/no-bid calls and remove_from_pipeline for removal.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance by mapping stages to user situations, names the alternative tool for Bidding/No bid, and explicitly says not to use this for taking a tender off the pipeline. These are concrete selection rules, not implied usage.

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