apply_prefill

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds one behavioral trait: 'Sensitive fields (password, card, SSN, IBAN, DOB) are NEVER in ``fields``.' However, it does not disclose other behaviors like auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects, and the output schema is not described.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first sentence states purpose, second adds a critical behavioral note. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the complexity (nested objects, output schema), the description covers the core purpose and adds a note about sensitive fields. It lacks explanation of what a PrefillPlan is, but the output schema likely fills that gap. Adequate but could be slightly more 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'mapping resume data,' which is generic. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states 'Build a PrefillPlan by mapping resume data to common ATS form fields.' This specifies the verb (build), resource (PrefillPlan), and input (resume data), distinguishing it from other apply_* siblings like 'apply_act' or 'apply_cover_letter.'

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 description implies usage for prefilling ATS forms but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. It only contextually notes the exclusion of sensitive fields.

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