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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description's job is to say what is lost or overwritten. It says nothing about whether existing customizations or layout edits are discarded, whether the change is reversible, or whether a paid plan is required — for a mutation flagged destructive, that is a real 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?

Two compact sentences, with the action and the prerequisite lookup front-loaded and the use cases trailing. Nothing is redundant with the title.

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?

Parameters and the template-discovery path are complete, and there is no output schema to explain. But for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation it omits confirmation expectations and what happens to the CV's existing content, leaving an agent to guess at side effects.

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%, so cvId, templateId, and locale are already documented in the schema. The description only indirectly adds meaning by pointing at list_takemeup_cv_templates for templateId, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Switch one of the user's CVs to another template (design)') and ties the operation to the sibling that supplies valid options. An agent can distinguish this from create_takemeup_cv or rewrite_takemeup_cv without opening either schema.

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 concrete trigger conditions ('different look, an ATS-safer layout, or a design with or without a photo') and routes to list_takemeup_cv_templates for valid template ids. No explicit exclusions or when-not guidance, which keeps it 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.