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

Annotations are empty, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely states the action with no mention of side effects, permissions, write behavior, or outcome. This is equivalent to the 'process' example with zero behavioral disclosure.

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 only two Chinese words, which is minimal but severely under-specified. It reads as a tautology of the tool name rather than providing useful structure or context.

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 8 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-phrase description is grossly inadequate. The agent gains no understanding of input requirements, expected behavior, or return values beyond the 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 schema already describes all 8 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level context or additional meaning 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 '添加项目经历' explicitly states the action (add) and the resource (project experience), which clearly conveys the tool's purpose. It is specific enough to distinguish from tools like add-work-exp, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add-work-exp or modify-project-exp. The description gives no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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