hires_batch_move_applications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose key behaviors: 'Returns per-item results with partial success support' and the max request size. However, it does not mention potential side effects, reversibility, authentication requirements, or what happens on validation failures, leaving some uncertainty for a mutation tool.

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 three concise sentences that front-load the core purpose, then immediately convey the critical return behavior and limit. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition.

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 batch operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: batch capabilities, partial success support, and request limits. It does not specify the exact structure of per-item results or error handling, but the provided details give an agent enough to anticipate behavior. This is more than minimally viable but not fully exhaustive.

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 100%: both 'ids' and 'stage_id' have clear descriptions. The tool description adds minimal parameter-level detail beyond stating the 100-ID limit, which is already in the schema. Since the schema handles parameter meaning, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Move' and the resource 'applications', specifying the batch nature ('multiple applications') and destination ('to a pipeline stage'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool hires_move_application by emphasizing 'multiple' and 'in one request', making the batch intent unambiguous.

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 indicates when to use this tool: when moving multiple applications in a single request, with a stated limit of 100 IDs. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the clear batch focus and the count limit imply it should be used over the single-application move tool for bulk operations. It lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance but provides enough context.

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