Attach CV or cover letter

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true; the description confirms and expands: 'a new call REPLACES the previous one'. Adds details on max size (~5 MB), allowed formats (pdf/doc/docx/txt/md), and MIME inference. No contradictions.

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?

Single paragraph, front-loaded with action and purpose, followed by key details and a clear example. Every sentence adds value. No filler.

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 5 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, constraints, and an example. Does not mention error conditions, but for a file attachment tool it is sufficiently 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 coverage is 40% (descriptions for mime and data_base64). Description adds value by stating file size limit, allowed formats, and replacement behavior per (application, kind). Kind enum is enriched with natural language definitions. Example provides context for all parameters.

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 action: 'Attach or replace a file on an application'. It specifies the resource (application), file types (CV or cover letter), and the effect. The tool is distinct from sibling tools like add_application or attach_analysis.

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?

States when to call: 'whenever you generate a tailored CV or cover letter'. Explains replacement semantics and file constraints. However, no explicit mention of when NOT to use or alternatives like attach_analysis. Good but not exhaustive.

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