hr_live_advance_application

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds a meaningful behavioral hint ('HITL-gated'), indicating human approval is required, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the operation is reversible, what happens on failure, or any permission requirements.

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 a single short sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. While more details could be added, the existing text is efficient.

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?

Given the tool's role in advancing a candidate (a state-changing operation) and the lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (even though an output schema exists), prerequisites, side effects, or possible errors. The agent has insufficient context to confidently invoke the tool.

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 has zero description coverage for both parameters. The description does not explain the meaning of 'application_id' (presumably the candidate ID) or 'body' (possibly notes or custom data). The agent must guess parameter semantics without any guidance.

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 ('Advance') and the resource ('a Greenhouse candidate to the next stage'), and adds a useful contextual hint ('HITL-gated'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'greenhouse_advance_application', which likely performs a similar function without the HITL gate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'greenhouse_advance_application' or other candidate progression tools. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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