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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds meaningful context: 'Requires jobs:apply' permission and specifies the target is the 'connected account's profile resume file,' clarifying the scope of deletion.

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 two sentences: one functional statement and one context/permission note. Every word earns its place, and the key scoping detail ('connected account's profile resume file') is front-loaded.

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?

The description is mostly complete for a zero-parameter destructive action. It names the permission requirement and the functional context. With annotations carrying the safety profile and output schema present, the main missing element would be an explicit note about irreversibility, but destructiveHint already covers that.

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 has zero parameters and 100% coverage trivially. With 0 params, no parameter descriptions are needed. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics; the baseline 4 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('delete the connected account's profile resume file') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like upload_resume and get_resume, and names the client surface (Job Cards You/Settings).

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?

The description provides some context for when the tool is used: 'Used by Job Cards You/Settings.' While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, the pairing with get_resume/upload_resume in sibling tools implies a resume-management context.

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