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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it creates a NEW separate CV, leaves the original untouched, requires PRO and AI consent, adapts format to locale, and returns translatedCvId and an editor link. These details are valuable, though it does not cover caching/regenerate behavior or failure modes.

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?

The description is four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the important constraint that the original stays. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description explains the non-destructive nature, PRO/AI consent requirement, locale adaptation, and returned values. It is largely complete, though it could clarify how AI consent is obtained and how regenerate/caching interacts with repeated calls.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents cvId, locale, regenerate, and targetLocale thoroughly. The description only implicitly maps to the inputs by saying 'one of the user's CVs' and 'another language,' adding little parameter-specific detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: translate a user's CV into another language as a new, separate CV. It also clarifies the key differentiator that the original CV remains intact and that the output is adapted to the target language's CV format, which distinguishes it from rewrite or create tools.

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 gives a clear usage trigger: when the user applies in another country or language. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as rewrite_takemeup_cv or explain when not to use this tool, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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