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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds actionable retry behavior: reuse the same idempotency key on retries. It also adds a data-provenance rule (no invented employers/dates/achievements) that annotations cannot convey. It stops short of describing auth, limits, or the response.

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?

Four short imperative sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a constraint, then the retry rule last. No filler, though the idempotency sentence could be folded together with the rest without loss.

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 high-complexity, 7-required-parameter creation tool with a deeply nested content schema, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves major gaps: no guidance on documentType or pageSize, no structure expectations for content.basics/sections, and no indication of what a successful save returns. The anti-fabrication rule and locale/template advice are useful but insufficient.

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 0% across 7 required parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It conceptually names only three of them (contentLocale via 'content language', templateId via 'template', idempotencyKey via 'idempotency key') and gives no enum values, no format rules, and nothing about title, pageSize, documentType, or the large nested content object.

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?

Specifies a concrete verb+resource (save a new structured resume) and scopes the input to user-supplied or user-approved facts, which cleanly separates it from update_resume and create_resume_copy. It never names those siblings, so an agent still has to infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 real operating guidance ('ask for missing facts', 'do not invent employers, dates or achievements', 'choose an explicit content language and template') that constrains how to call it. It does not state when to prefer this over update_resume or create_resume_copy, nor any preconditions such as fetching template/locale options first.

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