Move Negotiation

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the critical mutation guard ('requires confirm=True'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about what happens if confirm is omitted, whether moves are reversible, permission requirements, or which collection transitions are legal.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core effect is front-loaded before the parameter provenance and mutation warning. The semicolon clause about the actions URL is slightly compressed but not wasteful.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, parameter provenance, and the confirm guard, which is the minimum viable set. It still omits valid target collections and failure semantics, which an agent needs to call this correctly the first time.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it names collection_name and nid as coming from the actions URL, describes body as an optional attachable message, and flags confirm as required for mutation. However, it never enumerates valid collection_name values or specifies the nid format, leaving the highest-risk parameter underspecified.

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 ('change the ... state of a negotiation by moving it to another collection') and grounds it with a concrete example ('from response to invitation'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling update_negotiation, so an agent must infer which mutation to pick, but the mechanism (collection move) is distinctive enough.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Change the employer or applicant state' — an agent can infer this is for pipeline-stage transitions, not general field edits. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of which transitions are valid, and no comparison to update_negotiation, leaving real selection ambiguity.

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