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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the draft is stored on Digital Help's server for up to 60 minutes, is deleted on first link open, and each call creates a new link (which concretely explains the non-idempotent behavior flagged by idempotentHint=false). It also discloses the return payload (outline + link), which no output schema provides.

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 tight sentences: capability + return, usage trigger, side effects. Zero restatement of the schema, and the most decision-relevant facts (editor link, retention window) are front-loaded.

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 nested, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: what is returned, where the draft lives, how long it persists, and how to avoid inventing user data. It leaves template/section semantics to the schema, which is only 60% described — the one remaining gap.

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 60%, so much is already documented (locale enum, headline, section title, entry fields, date patterns). The description adds only the input-provenance constraint ('include only details the user provided') and confirms the language set; it says nothing about the template enum, section ordering, or the 10-section/30-entry caps, so it does not compensate for the ~40% coverage gap.

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 ('Create a CV (resume) from details the user has given') plus the concrete outcome: a link to the Digital Help CV editor and a returned text outline. The editor/PDF-DOCX framing makes it unmistakable against the unrelated siblings (calculate_net_salary, search_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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions — 'when the user asks to write, build or format a CV' — and narrows scope to the three supported languages plus the constraint to 'include only details the user provided'. No when-not guidance or named alternative, but there is no comparable sibling to route to, so the omission is minor.

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