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

Annotations only say it is a non-idempotent, non-destructive write; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing a real side effect (applicant email fires if the stage's email is on), its timing (~2 minutes), and the reversibility window (undo before the move is undone). It also reveals that the response carries an eventId, which is otherwise undocumented since there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the side-effect/reversibility caveat attached immediately after. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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-required-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the external side effect, its timing, and the undo path. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% and both parameters are already self-documenting ('from get_job', 'from list_applications'), so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. It does implicitly tie stageId to a destination stage of the same job, which reinforces the schema rather than duplicating it verbatim.

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 ('Moves an application') plus the destination concept ('another stage of its job'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from sibling mutations like update_application_form or change_job_status. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling other than undo_move, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is clear: this is the stage-transition operation, and the description names the follow-up alternative ('undo_move with the returned eventId') with the condition that triggers it. It gives no explicit 'when not to use' guidance (e.g., versus bulk ranking or waiting-list operations), which keeps it below 5.

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