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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: per-item results, partial success allowed, and a 100-item ceiling. It does not detail failure behavior or reversibility, but the annotation covers the core warning.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the batch size and core action, then appends result semantics. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 two-parameter batch operation, the description covers the inputs, the batch limit, and the key outcome behavior. It is slightly incomplete because there is no output schema and the exact per-item result format is not described, but this is a minor gap.

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 only 50%, leaving stage_id undocumented. The description maps 'applications' to ids and 'stage' to stage_id, providing some semantic grounding. Still, it does not explicitly confirm that ids are application IDs or describe what kind of stage_id is expected.

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: 'Move up to 100 applications to a stage in one request.' It also distinguishes itself from the single-application sibling by emphasizing 'batch' and capacity limits. The scope is immediately clear.

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 implies when to use it: moving multiple applications in one request. However, it never names the single-item alternative (hires_move_application) or states when not to use this tool, so the agent must infer the routing from sibling names.

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