make_cover_letter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write operation, destination folder, returned path, and the metadata-padding behavior for short text. It could be more transparent about overwrite behavior and naming, but it covers the key behavioral traits.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the padding edge case is explained, and the DOCX preference is justified. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides strong operating context: destination, return type, format rationale, and an important upload constraint. The main missing piece is the 'name' parameter and possible overwrite behavior, so it is not fully complete.

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 has no property descriptions, so the description must clarify parameters. It indirectly clarifies 'text' as the cover letter content and links it to the padding rule, but it does not mention the optional 'name' parameter at all or what it controls. This is a meaningful gap.

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 ('Write'), resource ('cover letter as a DOCX file'), destination ('CV_collection'), and return value ('its path'). It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like browser_upload by positioning itself as the file-creation step before upload.

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?

Names browser_upload as the downstream consumer and explains why DOCX is preferred over PDF with the 8KB upload constraint. It gives clear use context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name an alternative generation tool.

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