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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false), the description discloses the cascading side effect that all other resumes are deactivated and the 'not_found' failure for a missing or non-owned resume. That ownership check is meaningful auth-scope context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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 mutation and its side effect are front-loaded, and the error behavior follows. No filler.

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-value detail is not required, and the description still flags the notable failure mode. For a one-parameter mutation with clear annotations, this is nearly complete; only the parameter's own semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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?

With reported schema description coverage at 0%, the description is expected to compensate for the single parameter, and it says nothing about resume_id format or provenance. The nested schema itself does document resume_id ('as returned by list_resumes'), but the description adds no parameter meaning of its own.

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 states a precise verb and resource ('Make a resume the user's active one') and immediately scopes the effect ('deactivating all others'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like rename_resume, set_resume_style, or delete_resume.

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 intended use is implied by the action itself, but the description names no alternatives or selection criteria (e.g., when to call this versus set_resume_style or create_resume_version). The only conditional given is an error case, not guidance on when to invoke it.

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