Update resume master field

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple mutation statement by revealing that it only edits existing fields, backs up the file first, and reports old → new values. It also scopes the operation to the single file, which is valuable context. This level of detail surpasses typical tool descriptions.

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 compact (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds meaningful detail: the existing-field constraint, backup and reporting behavior, and file scope. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it highly 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?

For a straightforward two-parameter update operation, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, its constraints, the backup mechanism, and the reporting of old/new values. Since no output schema is provided, describing the 'reports old → new' behavior is a good substitute for return format. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including concrete examples for 'path' and a type list for 'value'. The description adds some context with 'dot/bracket path' and use-case examples, but these are largely re-statements of schema information. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles most of the explanatory load.

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 the verb 'Update', the specific resource 'resume_master.json', and the scope 'one existing field' with dot/bracket path. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_resume_master_field' and 'list_resume_master_structure' by focusing on mutation of existing fields. Examples (corrected date, added skill, new project) further clarify the intended use.

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 explicitly notes that it 'will not create new keys', providing a clear constraint on when not to use it and directing schema additions to manual hand-editing. It also scopes usage to 'resume_master.json only', which prevents accidental use on other files. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for different scenarios (e.g., add vs. update), leaving some inference to the user.

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