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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the original is preserved, no remote job/document URLs are fetched, IDs/order/hidden content are preserved, and it explicitly tells the agent to reuse the idempotency key on retries. It omits return shape, but that is a minor gap.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the preservation and idempotency constraints, with no filler. Slightly more compact grouping could earn a 5, but every sentence contributes.

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 complex, 5-required-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description covers the spirit of the operation well but leaves the `expectedVersion` contract (why a version is required and what happens on mismatch) and the returned artifact undescribed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and there are 5 parameters, so the description must carry meaning. It usefully clarifies `changes` (tailoring edits vs complete translated content), `title` (named copy), and `idempotencyKey` (reuse on retries), but leaves `sourceResumeId` and especially `expectedVersion` (optimistic-concurrency semantics) unexplained.

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 (create) and resource (resume copy) with clear scope: named duplicate, tailored copy, or language copy of the exact source version. The modes map directly to the `changes` discriminator and the tool is distinguishable from `create_resume` (new resume) and `update_resume` (mutates in place).

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?

Clearly establishes the context for use: duplicating/tailoring/translating an existing version while preserving the original, and it implicitly separates itself from update_resume and create_resume. It does not name a sibling tool or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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