hires_transfer_application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that a new application is created on the target job, which is an important behavioral trait. However, it remains silent on what happens to the original application (e.g., deleted, archived, or left unchanged), and it does not mention permissions, side effects, or other consequences. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool without annotations.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first states the core action, and the second adds an important behavioral detail and the optional stage context. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.

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?

With four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and the optional stage but omits the fate of the original application and the behavior of the 'include' parameter. It also does not describe the return value. Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, this level of completeness is moderate but leaves important gaps for an agent to invoke safely.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions 'Optionally specify a stage,' but the schema already explains stage_id and its default. The 'include' parameter is not mentioned in the description, though the schema covers it. Thus the description provides minimal added meaning over the structured parameter descriptions.

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 ('Transfer') and clearly identifies the resource ('an application') and target ('another job'). It also states the key effect ('A new application is created on the target job'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like hires_move_application that may operate within the same job. This is a clear, non-tautological statement of purpose.

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 implies the use case (transferring an application to a different job) and mentions the optional stage, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hires_move_application or hires_batch_move_applications. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative reference, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing among related application-mutation tools.

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