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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key non-obvious fact about blast radius: only the main resume is removed and "other saved resumes stay," which is exactly the detail an agent needs before committing a destructive call.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the scope-limiting clause is front-loaded where it matters most for a destructive operation. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

With annotations covering destructiveness/idempotency, zero parameters, and an output schema present, the description needs only to convey scope — which it does. Minor residual gap: it doesn't say what happens to in-flight applications tied to that resume, though that may be covered by the output schema.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a parameterless schema is 4. The description correctly implies the target is fixed (the user's main resume) rather than selectable.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Delete the user's main resume from their profile") and narrows the scope to the main resume, which an agent could otherwise confuse with a general resume-deletion. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling (e.g. get_my_resume / upload_my_resume), but the scope qualifier does most of the disambiguating work.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for removing the user's primary resume. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. whether a main resume must exist), and no routing to alternatives for deleting other saved resumes.

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