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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the constraint that stage ids come from the job's pipeline_stages, a useful behavioral note about input provenance. It does not describe side effects beyond moving the stage, which is acceptable given the annotation already signals destructive behavior.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes a crucial constraint. It has no filler and earns its place.

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 simple mutation tool with two required parameters, the description provides essential guidance: where stage ids come from and what the action does. The omitted application id clarification is minor and inferable from the phrasing. The optional include field is covered by schema, and no output schema exists to document.

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 33%, so the description must compensate. It directly explains stage_id semantics by pointing to job pipeline_stages. The tool name and wording imply that id refers to the application, but that is not explicitly stated in the description. The optional include parameter is not described in the description, though it is already 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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Move an application to a specific pipeline stage.' It also adds the key constraint that stage ids come from the job's pipeline_stages. It does not explicitly name and contrast the sibling tool hires_advance_application, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 the use case: move an application when you have a specific stage_id from the job's pipeline_stages. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools like hires_advance_application or when NOT to use this tool, but the 'specific stage' wording gives some applicable direction.

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