pandape_mover_candidato

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly flags the operation as 'ESCRITURA' (write), mandates user confirmation, and requires PANDAPE_READONLY=0. This covers the essential safety and prerequisite context, though it does not detail side effects or reversibility.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a concise safety instruction. No redundant information, perfectly sized for the tool's complexity.

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 write operation with no output schema, the description captures the essential purpose, the mutation nature, and a critical confirmation requirement. It doesn't explain return values or error handling, but those are less critical for a move action. It would benefit from mentioning the motivo requirement for discard stages, but the schema covers that.

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 describes 60% of parameters (motivo, etapaOrigen, etapaDestino). The description adds little about parameters beyond implying the move action. idMatch and idVacante remain undocumented, but they are reasonably self-explanatory given the context. Without high schema coverage, the description does not fully compensate, but it is adequate.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Mueve un candidato de una etapa del pipeline a otra' (moves a candidate from one pipeline stage to another). This is a specific verb+resource+target, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like viewing candidates or listing vacancies.

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 its use (when you need to move a candidate) but does not explicitly discuss when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It does include a usage caveat about confirming with the user and the PANDAPE_READONLY=0 requirement, but these are more about execution prerequisites than alternatives.

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