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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the nuance that matters: sections supplied replace their section while "the rest stays," which prevents overestimating the destructive scope. It also discloses the auth requirement and that a review link is returned, adding context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the auth requirement, then purpose, then replacement semantics, then out-of-scope tool, then return value — all in four dense sentences with no filler. The single-paragraph packing of the section list makes it slightly less scannable, 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 nested-object mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers auth, replacement scope, sibling routing, the primary-CV exclusion, and the return value (a review link). Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds the omit-to-keep contract and enumerates the sections that can be replaced (headline, summary, experience, projects, skills, and "other sections"), which is the key semantic an agent needs when composing a partial update. It does not detail field-level constraints, but those are fully documented in 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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Saves new content into one of the user's editable CVs." It immediately scopes the objects it can touch (CVs made with create_cv_variant) and names the neighboring tools create_cv_variant and set_primary_cv, so the agent can distinguish it from its siblings without reading schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: creation belongs to create_cv_variant, and the primary CV (CV chính) is out of scope with a pointer to set_primary_cv. It also states the prerequisite (techjobs.vn sign-in), so the when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions are both covered.

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