hires_move_application

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a mutation ('Move an application') and explains the need for a target stage. However, it omits potential side effects, authorization requirements, or failure behavior, leaving some uncertainty about the operation's full impact.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action, and includes only essential context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 relatively simple mutation tool with full schema coverage, the description provides enough context for correct selection and invocation. It explains the purpose, the key parameter source, and the use case. It does not describe return values, but there is no output schema and the action is straightforward.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful semantic value by explaining that stage_id is the target stage and where to get it ('get it from the job's pipeline_stages'). This elevates it above the baseline 3.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Move an application to a specific pipeline stage.' It also adds context about explicit stage transitions. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like hires_advance_application or hires_transfer_application, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides clear usage context ('Use this for explicit stage transitions in workflow orchestration') and practical guidance for obtaining the required stage_id from the job's pipeline_stages. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, which is the only gap.

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