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

The annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds behavior they cannot express: the current content is saved as another undo version, so the change is reversible, and a preview pass must precede the confirmed write. It also states the return payload, which matters for chaining.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the workflow constraint, then the side effect. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema verbatim.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description still covers the confirm workflow and the undo-version side effect. The minor gap is that it does not state explicitly that the preview step means calling with confirm: false, leaving that to inference.

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% and each param already has a description, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning: it clarifies that confirm must be set only on the second call after explicit user confirmation, and that resumeId/versionId come from prior import or restore responses.

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 and resource plus the scope: restoring resume content saved before an import. Clear enough that an agent can distinguish it from import_resume_text, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with them, which is what a 5 requires.

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 an explicit two-step operating procedure (preview first, then repeat identical inputs with confirm: true only after explicit conversation confirmation). Strong context, but it names no alternative tool and gives no 'when not to use' exclusion.

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