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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: who is authorized to decide, how to target the latest waiting step when interview_id is omitted, and how a note can be routed to the recruiter via send_to_recruiter.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action and scope come first, followed by permission and targeting details, then the optional note behavior. Every sentence contributes relevant information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, authorization, targeting behavior, and a side-effect option. Rich annotations handle idempotency and safety signals, though the unexplained request_id and idempotency_key parameters keep it from being 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains decision, interview_id, note, and send_to_recruiter, but leaves application_id, request_id, and idempotency_key entirely unexplained. It partially compensates for the low schema coverage, but not fully.

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: advance or hold a candidate on a hiring-manager step, or change that decision. It clearly scopes the tool to steps that wait on the hiring manager. It does not, however, distinguish itself by name from similar siblings such as yardstick_applications_decide or yardstick_applications_hiring_step_decision.

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 gives usable context: the hiring manager or a recruiter on the job may decide, and interview_id may be omitted to target the latest such step. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over sibling decision tools or when not to use it, so the routing guidance remains implicit.

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