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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses two important behavioral traits: name uniqueness is case-insensitive per job, and applicant email defaults to off. It does not say what happens when a duplicate name is supplied, but the annotations already cover the mutation safety profile.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the two key constraints. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 stage-creation tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the important constraints an agent needs. It does not address duplicate-name error behavior or return values, though no output schema exists to clarify the latter.

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 50%: jobId is described in the schema, but name has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining that names are unique per job in any letter case, though it adds no format or validation details beyond that.

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: adds a stage, scoped to a job's stages and appended at the end. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as rename_stage, reorder_stages, delete_stage, and set_stage_email.

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 append-at-end behavior gives clear usage context and implicitly separates this tool from reordering or renaming stages. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of the top score.

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