move_candidate_in_pipeline

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

No annotations are provided. The description only mentions moving a candidate, implying a state change, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., notifications, permission requirements, idempotency). For a mutation tool, more behavioral context is needed.

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 brief—two sentences—and front-loads the key action. Could be slightly more concise by removing the example, but overall 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 has 4 parameters (3 required), no enums, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output schema or return value, does not mention prerequisites (e.g., candidate must be in a valid pipeline stage), and leaves ambiguity about whether the status is a stage name or ID.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints that 'status' refers to a stage name (e.g., 'Technical Interview'), but does not explain valid values, format, or relationship to the pipeline. Other parameters (job_id, candidate_id, comments) have no additional meaning beyond their names.

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 ('Move a candidate'), the resource ('candidate'), and the context ('within a specific job's pipeline'), with an example ('Move candidate to Technical Interview stage'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_job_pipeline (read-only) and update_candidate_status (general status update).

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 provides a usage example but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_candidate_status or when not to use it. The example implies a typical use case but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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