Move a pipeline card

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses side effects per status (INTERVIEWING creates a durable interview record, WITHDRAWN removes the card, closing a role removes its listing from the feed), confirms no employer contact, and explains that undo is only offered when reversible. This goes well past the destructiveHint/openWorldHint flags.

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-loads the core action, then layers the status semantics in tight clauses with no filler. Slightly list-like and dense, but every sentence carries signal.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering return values, the description focuses correctly on behavioral meaning. It is nearly complete, missing only full coverage of the remaining enum statuses.

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 50% (matchId documented, status enum undocumented), and the description compensates by explaining the semantics of several enum values (APPLIED, INTERVIEWING, WITHDRAWN). It leaves other enum values (SAVED, CONFIRMED, OFFER_RECEIVED, ACCEPTED, REJECTED, NO_RESPONSE) unexplained, so it adds meaning but not completely.

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 (moves) and resource (a role's board card to the requested column), and explicitly distinguishes the operation from submitting an application ('APPLIED records an application rather than submitting one'). An agent can separate this from apply/mark_applied_offsite without opening their schemas.

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?

Clarifies the intent boundary ('No employer is contacted'; APPLIED records rather than submits), which tells the agent when this is the right tool versus an actual apply flow. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or explicit exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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