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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) by disclosing that the overwrite is itself undoable because the current content is snapshotted as a version first, that the returned new_revision_id can be restored in turn, that style and PDF are untouched, that there is no quota, and that a 'not_found' result covers missing or non-owned resumes/versions. This is exactly the extra context a mutation tool needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints and side effects in descending priority, with no filler sentences. It is a single dense block rather than broken into scannable clauses, which costs a little readability but not information.

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 destructive-but-undoable mutation with two nested parameters, the description covers the trigger condition, the reversal path, untouched surfaces, quota, and the failure mode — and an output schema exists to carry return structure, so nothing essential 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 description coverage is reported at 0%, though the description does name the revision_id origin ('from get_resume_history') and its meaning ('version to bring back'). It adds nothing about resume_id sourcing and no format/syntax detail, so it only partially compensates for the documented 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 — bringing an earlier saved resume version back as current content — which cleanly separates it from view-only siblings like get_resume_revision and get_resume_history, and from create_resume_version. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 a concrete trigger condition: 'for content that went missing or an earlier version the user wants back', and points at get_resume_history as the source of the revision_id. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement (e.g. 'to only inspect a version, use get_resume_revision'), so routing against the read siblings is left to inference.

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