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

Annotations only say the tool is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so the description adds real value: authentication is required, there are per-plan quotas, the source CV is left unchanged, and the call returns the copy's content plus a review link. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs before invoking a mutating copy operation.

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?

It is dense but front-loaded: the sign-in precondition comes first, then what gets copied, then follow-up tools. The plan-limit parenthetical is slightly bulky in a single sentence, but nothing is filler and each clause carries instruction value.

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 no output schema, the description still says what comes back (the copy's content and a review link). Combined with the auth gate, quota limits, non-destructiveness of the original, and next-step tool routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and explain the result to a user.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter already carries a description including the from_cv_id default (omit to copy the primary CV) and the job_id tailoring behavior. The description restates these at a high level without adding format or edge-case detail, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting and baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource (copies a CV into a new editable CV) plus source options (primary CV or from_cv_id) and scope (optionally tailored to one job). It distinguishes itself from siblings by name: delete_cv_variant, update_cv_variant, and set_primary_cv are all clearly different operations.

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 explicit routing: use update_cv_variant to edit the copy afterwards, and set_primary_cv if the user wants it as primary. It also states the precondition (techjobs.vn sign-in) and the practical ceiling (5 CVs on Free, 20 on Pro), which tells an agent when this call will fail or be inappropriate.

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