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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them: techjobs.vn sign-in required, deletion is reversible via a 30-day trash window, the first invocation changes nothing, and the primary CV is protected. These are exactly the behavioral facts 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?

Three tight sentences, each carrying new information: precondition, effect/reversibility, and the confirmation protocol. The auth requirement is front-loaded ahead of the destructive semantics, which is slightly less optimal than leading with what the tool does, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, the reversibility window, the confirmation loop, and even what the first (non-committing) call returns. Nothing material is left for the agent to infer.

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 cv_id already documents its source (list_my_cvs), so the baseline is 3. The description adds protocol-level meaning to confirm_delete by explaining it should only be set on a repeated call after user agreement, which reinforces and contextualizes the schema's own note.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (delete one of the user's editable CVs) and adds scoping detail: it goes to trash, is restorable for 30 days, and the primary CV is never affected. An agent can distinguish this from update_cv_variant or set_primary_cv without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit trigger condition ('Only when the user asked') plus a concrete two-step protocol: the first call is a no-op that reports what would be removed, then repeat with confirm_delete true after asking the user. That is precise when-to-use guidance with the required prerequisite spelled out.

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