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

Annotations indicate this is a mutating but non-destructive action. The description adds the important behavioral detail that the setting applies to every tailored CV, making the global scope explicit. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The action, resource, scope, and parameter source are all front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter mutating tool, the description covers the target resource, global effect, and valid parameter source. It could mention invalid-key behavior or immediate vs. future effect, but these are minor 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?

The schema only provides a string with maxLength 40 and no description. The description compensates by defining the 'design' parameter semantically as a key from list_cv_designs, giving the agent a concrete way to find a valid value.

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: 'Set the design every tailored CV is rendered in.' It also clarifies that the accepted value is a key from list_cv_designs, which distinguishes it from the sibling list_cv_designs tool.

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 tool as the way to change the global CV design and tells the agent to obtain valid values from list_cv_designs. It does not spell out exclusions, but there is no competing sibling setter, so the guidance is sufficient.

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