upload_resume

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses WRITE operation, multipart encoding, parse behavior returning text/fields/photo, and the response id usage. However, it omits error handling, idempotency, and permission requirements.

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?

Three concise sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second explains source options, third covers parse and follow-up. Front-loaded with essential info.

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 no output schema, description explains the response contains an id and parse returns text/fields/photo, and provides concrete next-step guidance (create_applicant). Covers all key aspects for effective use.

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 100%, but description adds significant value: clarifies mutual exclusivity of source parameters, explains parse=true behavior, and indicates default for content_type, going well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Upload a resume file' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_applicant_resume' (read) by emphasizing it is a WRITE operation.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: two mutually exclusive source methods (file_path vs content_base64+file_name), explains parse parameter, and instructs how to use the returned id with create_applicant, covering downstream integration.

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