upload_candidate_resume

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 usefully discloses that dry_run returns a preview without performing the upload, and gives the default classifications for file_type and external_id. It omits other important behavior: whether an upload replaces or appends existing resume files, auth/permission requirements, and error handling.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact Args list and a short Returns note. It is slightly padded (the Returns section restates the preview behavior already covered under dry_run), but there is no significant waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and the parameter documentation is complete. Still, for a mutation tool with no annotations, an agent would benefit from knowing permission needs, supported file types, and whether the upload overwrites an existing resume — none of which appear.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all five parameters are explained, including the meaning of file_type and external_id as Bullhorn classifications and the defaults for those fields and dry_run. It does not clarify accepted file formats for file_path or candidate_id sourcing, so it falls short of fully compensating.

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 ('Upload a local resume file to a Bullhorn Candidate'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like get_candidate_files or get_candidate. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the target and action are concrete enough to route on without opening the 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?

The dry_run parameter description implies a validate-then-commit workflow, which is useful usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over others, what prerequisites exist (a session, an existing candidate), or any exclusions such as file format or size limits.

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