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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false; the description earns credit by adding that the edit saves a new version and that undo is restore_version, which the annotations do not convey. It does not explain whether omitting a section preserves or clears existing content — a meaningful gap for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the concurrency contract, then the undo escape hatch. No filler; the only cost is the stale field names, which is a correctness issue rather than verbosity.

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, deeply nested, destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the version/undo story but leaves the most consequential semantics unstated: whether supplying sections replaces or merges existing sections, and what the returned version/state looks like. That is the minimum an agent needs before overwriting a resume.

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%, and the description does name the main writable targets and the optimistic-locking contract for expectedVersion. However it references 'changes' and 'questions[]', which do not exist in the schema (the actual field is userStatedFacts), so the parameter guidance is partly stale and potentially misleading rather than additive.

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 ('Applies the person's requested edit'), the resource (resume), and enumerates the mutable surface: sections, title, role, template, colour. It is clearly separable from create_resume (new resume) and restore_version (undo), which it names directly.

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 a clear operating condition — expectedVersion must match contentVersion — and routes undo explicitly to restore_version, naming the alternative. It does not state when to prefer a different edit path (e.g. tailor_resume for tailoring) or what to do when the version check fails, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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