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

Annotations are all false, so no side-effect hints. Description adds credit consumption (2 credits) and output as session_id. Lacks details on potential state changes or error behaviors, but provides minimal useful context.

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?

Three sentences: action+credits, inputs/output, and template creation reference. No redundancy, front-loaded with key info. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Mentions return value (session_id) and credit cost. No output schema, so this is sufficient. Does not address potential asynchronous behavior or error handling, but usage is typically straightforward given siblings.

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 100%, so baseline 3. Description reinforces that template_id and candidate_id come from specific list tools, but schema already states that. No additional semantic value beyond what's in the schema.

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 verb 'apply' and the resource (branded CV template to candidate CV), producing a formatted PDF. It distinguishes itself from siblings like atlas_list_cv_templates and atlas_download_reformatted_cv by specifying the action of reformatting.

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?

Explicitly mentions required inputs (template_id and candidate_id) with sources, and output (session_id). Notes credit cost and provides a pointer for template creation. Lacks explicit exclusions but good context.

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