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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states that fields are updated, but fails to disclose side effects on unmentioned fields, authorization requirements, return value, error behavior, or whether the operation is reversible. As a mutation tool, this lacks critical behavioral detail.

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 a single short sentence that immediately conveys the action and target. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and appropriately 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 tool has 17 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not mention response behavior, error conditions, or usage context. It lacks essential operational details needed to invoke the tool confidently, making it incomplete for its complexity.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all 17 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'update the passed-in fields' adds a partial-update semantic, but it is a global statement rather than per-parameter clarification, and it does not significantly extend beyond the schema's existing parameter information.

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 uses the explicit verb '修改' (modify) and clearly identifies the target resource as '简历的【基本信息】数据' (resume's basic information data), distinguishing it from sibling tools that modify other resume sections. It also conveys the partial-update behavior ('更新传入的字段数据'). However, it could more explicitly state its scope relative to other modify-* 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like modify-edu-exp or modify-work-exp. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the usage context entirely implied.

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