rt_set_stage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool refuses to move disqualified candidates, cannot disqualify anyone, requires a preview-then-confirm two-call gate, and verifies the move by re-reading the candidate afterward. This is rich behavioral context beyond any structured field.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core action, then systematically covers prerequisites, mirroring caveats, non-goals, and the confirmation flow. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 mutation risk, the absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, failure behavior, safety constraints, confirmation requirements, and post-move verification. It leaves little ambiguity for an agent deciding whether and how to 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?

Schema coverage is 75%, with the `confirm` parameter lacking a description. The description compensates by explaining the two-call gate ('preview, then confirm'), which gives meaning to `confirm`. It also clarifies stage-name behavior ('an unknown name is refused and the real ones are listed back'), adding value beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Move an existing candidate into another pipeline stage on ONE of their roles.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rt_get_stages (read-only stages) and explicitly disclaims rejection functionality, making its scope unmistakable.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: advance a candidate or mirror an external move. It also provides alternatives and exclusions: call rt_get_stages first if stage names are unknown, ask which stage is meant when mirroring across systems, and never use as a rejection tool. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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