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

Annotations already convey idempotency, non-destructiveness, and closed-world scope. The description adds genuine unannotated behavior: the specific error codes returned ('not_found' for missing/foreign resumes, 'invalid_payload' for empty names), which is real operational value beyond the safety profile.

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: the disambiguation is front-loaded, and the error contract follows. No filler, every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, yet the definition still surfaces the failure modes an agent must handle. Combined with the annotations covering safety and idempotency, nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 reported as 0%, so the description carries extra burden, and it does clarify the semantic of 'name' as the display name rather than any content field. It adds meaning over the schema but does not elaborate resume_id format beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Rename a resume DOCUMENT') and immediately narrows what is being renamed ('the display name shown in the resume list'). This lets an agent distinguish it from the similarly-named update_resume_section without opening schemas.

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 names the case this tool does NOT cover ('Not the job headline inside the resume content') and routes that case to the correct alternative, update_resume_section with section 'title'. This is a textbook when-not/alternative statement.

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