Checks application policy, then builds a tailored resume from verbatim facts with a verifiable diff; policy failures return a recorded refusal with reasons.
Policy-check, then build a PREPARED application: tailored resume (verbatim facts, re-ordered) + verifiable diff. Policy failures return a recorded refusal with reasons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses the failure path (recorded refusal with reasons) and a strong behavioral guarantee (verbatim facts, re-ordered only), which are real value-adds. It does not say whether a prepared application is persisted, whether repeated calls are idempotent, or what permissions/state must exist first.
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?
A single dense sentence with zero filler: the policy gate is front-loaded, followed by the produced artifacts and the failure mode. Every clause carries distinct information.
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 one-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: what gets produced (tailored resume plus diff) and what happens on refusal (recorded refusal with reasons). Missing details are minor workflow prerequisites rather than call-blocking gaps.
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 single required parameter job_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so an agent gets no confirmation that job_id is the target job (versus, say, an application or resume id). With one undocumented param, the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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 concrete verb and artifact: policy-check then build a PREPARED application, with the output contents named (tailored resume plus verifiable diff). That distinguishes it from approve_application or reject_application, but the description never names those siblings explicitly, so the boundary is inferable rather than stated.
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 phrase 'Policy-check, then build a PREPARED application' implies this is a pre-approval step, and the sibling set (approve_application, reject_application, set_policy) hints at the workflow. However, no explicit 'use this when...' or 'do not use this to approve/finalize' guidance is given, and prerequisites such as needing a policy set or resume ingested are left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.