set_resume

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that data is stored locally and warns against including passwords or unrelated secrets. However, it does not describe overwrite behavior, persistence, effects on future matching, or failure modes. Some useful context is present, but significant behavioral traits remain undisclosed.

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 description is two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the security warning is a valuable addition that earns its place. Nothing extraneous is included.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description provides adequate context: purpose, storage location, and a security caution. It does not explicitly state overwrite semantics or return behavior, but given the low complexity and the self-explanatory 'set' semantics, the description is reasonably 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 0%, so the description should compensate. The phrase 'resume text' clarifies the intended content of the 'resume' parameter, and the warning about secrets adds a semantic constraint. However, the description does not explain expected format, encoding, or how the stored text is used, leaving the parameter semantics only partially elaborated.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Store resume text locally for matching.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like set_browser, set_min_score, and search_hh_vacancies. An agent can infer immediately what operation this tool performs and on what input.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus its alternatives. The phrase 'for matching' gives some contextual hint, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools. An agent must rely on the name and schema alone for usage decisions.

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