hires_advance_application

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the core behavior: advancing an application to the next pipeline stage automatically, and adds the useful detail that no stage_id is required. However, it does not mention edge cases such as what happens if the application is already at the final stage, or any side effects, so transparency is moderate.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the action, and the second clarifies the automatic stage determination. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does and the key input behavior (no stage_id). It does not describe return values, but since there is no output schema, that is not strictly required. It could mention potential error cases, but overall it's adequate for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, so the parameter descriptions already cover 'id' and 'include'. The description adds semantic value by explicitly stating that no stage_id is needed, which clarifies that only the application 'id' is required for the tool to operate. This goes beyond the schema's mere listing of parameters and helps the agent understand the automatic behavior.

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 uses a specific verb 'advance' and resource 'application', and clarifies it moves to the next pipeline stage automatically. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'move_application' or 'transfer_application' that likely involve specifying a target stage or changing jobs.

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 explicitly states 'No stage_id needed -- the system determines the next stage automatically,' providing clear context for when to use this tool (i.e., when you want to advance by one stage without specifying a target). It implies that for specifying a particular stage, a different tool would be needed, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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