Update status

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the note is appended to existing notes rather than replacing them, and setting interview status with a date feeds list_upcoming reminders. It doesn't say whether re-setting an existing interview_date overwrites or duplicates it, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its enum, then parameter guidance, then a concrete example prompt. Every sentence carries information, though the example prompt is slightly redundant with the preceding sentence about interview_date.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation. Four params at 100% schema coverage plus description-level detail on formats, provenance, append semantics and downstream effects leave nothing an agent needs missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description still adds value by documenting id provenance, the accepted date formats, and the append semantics of note, which the schema's terse "A note to add to the application" only hints at.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Move an application to another stage") and enumerates the four valid target stages inline. This clearly distinguishes it from add_application, list_upcoming and export_report, which all serve different functions.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance ("When the status is interview, pass interview_date so list_upcoming can remind you") and names where the id comes from (add_application or export_report). It stops short of stating when-not-to-use, but for a purpose-specific mutation tool the context is clear.

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