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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the draft creation behavior, the 2,000-character summary cap, that raw text is not split into sections, the paid-plan requirement, privacy defaults, and the special outcome when resume_text is omitted. These details materially help an agent invoke and set expectations correctly.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and is generally efficient, but it repeats the template list already present in the schema and is fairly dense. Most sentences earn their place, though a few could be tightened.

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?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description supplies the remaining operational context an agent needs: paid-plan access, privacy behavior, resume_text omission semantics, template selection, and the presence of an alternative rewrite tool. Nothing critical is missing for correct selection or invocation.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics for resume_text, including its optionality and the unusual behavior when it is omitted, plus the privacy implication of make_public. It repeats some schema details such as template options, so it falls short of a full 5.

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 that the tool creates an editable resume draft, limits summary text to 2,000 characters, and distinguishes this behavior from rewriting a resume. It also names the sibling tool to use for rewriting, making its role easy to separate from getmattered_optimize_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 description gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including the alternative rewrite tool, the need to complete experience/education/skills in the builder, the paid-plan prerequisite, and the privacy rule for make_public. It also explains the behavioral branch when resume_text is omitted.

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