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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description isn't carrying that burden. It adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the full set of allowed stages, the side effect that 'hired' is recorded under employer terms, and the presence of a `say` summary in the response.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and destinations, then auxiliary notes. Every sentence carries information, though the enum is stated as a bare run-on list rather than clearly delimited values.

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 mutation tool with a modest annotation set and no output schema, the description covers the action, valid inputs, the key side effect, and the alternate tool. The mention of the `say` field is a useful hint about return shape; a note on applicant-visible effects would make it fully complete.

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% (application_id documented, stage undocumented and un-enumed), so the description must compensate. It does by enumerating the valid stage values, which is exactly the missing semantic the schema omits.

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 ('move'), resource ('an applicant') and target ('a stage'), and enumerates the valid destinations. It also names the sibling reject_applicant, so an agent can distinguish it from adjacent tools without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the turn-down case to reject_applicant, giving a clear when-not-to-use signal. However, it gives no context on when a stage move is appropriate versus other lifecycle tools (e.g., stop_application) and no prerequisites.

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