merge_into_resume

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key mutation behaviors: default insertion at position 0, the error_code=project_already_exists behavior instead of silent duplicate insertion, and replacement semantics with re-positioning when overwrite=true. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Well-organized with clear section headers ('when to call', 'behavior'), concise bullet points, and zero filler. Every sentence adds functional information. The structure makes scanning and comprehension 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 tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral paths (insert, overwrite, dedup) and pipeline placement well. Since an output schema exists, return value documentation isn't required from the description. The only minor gap is no guidance on how resume_data/new_bullets specifically interact, though these are reasonably inferable.

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. It explains position (defaults to 0, front of list), overwrite semantics, and project_name dedup logic — adding meaning to at least 3 key parameters that influence behavior. It doesn't cover role/tech_stack/project_url/new_bullets explicitly, but these are intuitively self-describing from the schema.

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 ('insert new project experience into resume's projects list'), names the resource (resume projects), and specifies the mechanism (supports position and overwrite). It also implicitly distinguishes from siblings — diff_resume_versions and render_pdf are clearly the pre/post steps, establishing this tool's unique role in the pipeline.

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 'when to call' section explicitly places this tool between generation (generate_bullet_points/analyze) and output (diff_resume_versions/render_pdf), giving clear pipeline context. It doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it versus an alternative, but the timing guidance is strong enough to orient the agent.

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