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

Annotations (destructive=true, non-idempotent, write) are consistent with "Saves... as a master", and the description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: duplicate detection semantics, the duplicate_resume error, and that missing details are returned in checks rather than failing. It could say more about what a master creation affects, but it is informative beyond structured data.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler; the core action and its main edge case (duplicate) are front-loaded before the detail about checks.

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 an 8-parameter nested write with no output schema, the description explains the duplicate outcome and where missing extracted details surface (checks), which covers the riskiest agent decisions. Gaps remain around how templateId/colorId affect the result, but nothing critical to a correct call is absent.

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 63%, so the schema carries most of the load. The description adds meaning for sourceText ("the attachment's text as read") and role (already documented in schema), but leaves colorId, templateId, sourceKind, and the structure of content unaddressed beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Saves the person's resume or LinkedIn profile as a master for a role" gives a specific verb, resource, and scope, and the duplicate/checks details distinguish it from update_resume and tailor_resume. An agent can separate this from its siblings without inspecting their schemas.

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?

It clearly frames the create case and routes the duplicate case: "Refused as duplicate_resume if that master exists: offer to update it." There is no explicit contrast with tailor_resume or update_resume for the non-duplicate path, so the alternative-selection guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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