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

Substantially exceeds the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) by describing the confirmation protocol: the call is proposed, returns status='confirmation_required' with an action_id and plan_token, and the write only happens after confirm_action. It also discloses that the change goes through the same transition log as other moves and that comment may be conditionally mandatory. This is exactly the operational context annotations cannot express.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and the reason requirement come first, then stage choice, then the confirmation mechanics. Every sentence adds distinct information and the CONFIRMATION block is clearly demarcated. Capitalized emphasis is heavy but does not cost comprehension.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the required inputs, the conditional validation rule, the enum choice and its default, and the full two-step confirmation workflow including the exact status value to expect. The only residual gap is occurred_at, which is minor against the overall completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: reason_id's required status and where to source values, the conditional requirement on comment, and the meaning plus default of each canonical_stage enum value. The occurred_at parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of five parameters unexplained. Application_id is self-evident from the tool purpose.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — removing an application from the funnel with a typed reason — and makes the exit semantics explicit via the canonical_stage values. It does not explicitly name hr_move_application_stage as the non-exit alternative, so the sibling boundary is implied rather than stated. The pointer to hr_list_applications for exit reasons is also slightly off given a hr_list_rejection_reasons sibling exists.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: reason_id is required, comment becomes required when the reason is flagged as needing explanation, and canonical_stage must be chosen deliberately with the default named. It does not spell out when to prefer this over a plain stage move, but the 'OUT of the funnel' framing carries that distinction. No explicit exclusions or preconditions beyond the confirmation flow.

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