update_hiring_stage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only states 'update', implying mutation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, error conditions, or rate limits. The HTTP method is mentioned but that is structural, not behavioral.

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 and a URL path convey the purpose, usage hint, and endpoint. Every element earns its place with no redundancy or waste.

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 tool with 6 parameters (3 optional) and no annotations, the description covers the required parameters and gives a key hint for status_id, but omits explanations for optional params and does not describe prerequisites or return behavior. Since an output schema exists, return value documentation is covered elsewhere, but behavioral context is lacking.

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 has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains that status_id should be resolved via another tool, and candidate_slug and job_slug are implied by the URL. However, the optional parameters (remark, stage_date, create_placement) are not mentioned at all, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 ('Update a candidate's hiring stage') and the specific resource (a job). It includes the HTTP method and URL path, and references a sibling tool for resolving a key parameter, distinguishing it from other tools.

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 explicitly directs the agent to use list_hiring_pipeline_stages to resolve status_id, providing clear guidance on correct usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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