advance_application

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation, explains default behavior when stage IDs are omitted ('advance to the natural next stage'), and implies a state change. However, it does not mention edge cases like what happens if the candidate is already at the final stage, or any permission/authorization requirements, which would ideally be included for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 well-structured: a clear opening statement, then usage examples, a workflow hint, and explicit alternative tools. Every sentence adds value and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return values need not be described. The description provides the core purpose, usage context, parameter guidance, and alternatives. It is adequate for a single-application advancement but could be slightly more complete with edge-case behavior. Overall, it is a well-rounded description.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage. The tool description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains how to get the application_id via a search chain, and clarifies that to_stage_id is optional and defaults to the next natural stage. This helps the agent understand parameter intent beyond the basic 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 clearly states the action: 'Move a candidate forward one stage in their job pipeline.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like reject_application or bulk_advance. The 'Write operation' note further clarifies its nature.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: includes example user phrases, a step-by-step workflow for obtaining the application_id, and clearly names alternatives ('To skip stages, use move_application_same_job. For bulk advancing, use bulk_advance.'). This goes beyond minimal guidance to actually direct the agent on when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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