Move candidate to stage

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful context the annotations can't convey: a hard restriction on 'New' and a required user-confirmation step before invocation. It omits side effects like notifications or what happens to prior stage history.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the disallowed case and the confirmation requirement front-loaded where an agent will see them.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the critical preconditions (valid stage, no 'New', user confirmation). The main residual gap is the undocumented job_application_id and the absence of any note on downstream effects.

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 only 33% — vacancy_id is documented but stage and job_application_id are bare. The description partially compensates by constraining stage ('must exist in the vacancy', cannot be 'New'), yet it never clarifies what job_application_id represents, leaving one required parameter unexplained in both places.

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 a candidate to another existing stage of the hiring process'), so the agent knows exactly the operation and object. It implicitly distinguishes itself from bulk_move_candidates (singular vs. bulk) but never names or explicitly contrasts that sibling.

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 real usage conditions: the stage name must exist in the vacancy, moving back to 'New' is disallowed, and the user must be asked to confirm first. It stops short of routing to the sibling bulk_move_candidates for multi-candidate moves or explaining what to do when the target stage doesn't exist.

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