add_bullet

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return value ('Returns `saved`') in the absence of an output schema, and by stating the grounding constraint ('Use only facts the person stated, never invented numbers'). It does not say whether reusing an existing `id` overwrites or errors, which is the notable remaining gap.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does before the routing guidance and parameter notes. Dense but every clause carries information; the backticked identifiers keep it scannable. Slightly packed, but 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?

For a 7-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: where `role` originates, its default semantics, the grounding rule for content, and the return value. Remaining fields (tags, metrics, text_es, profile) are fully documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-tool semantics the schema cannot: `role` comes from upsert_role, and omitting it scopes the bullet to Selected Impact only. That is meaningfully more than the schema's 'Role id from profile.yaml this bullet belongs to.'

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add one achievement to the bullet pool') and immediately defines what the resource is ('the material every CV variant picks from'). Distinguishes it from save_variant, which governs which bullets a CV shows, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('after the person approves the wording, one bullet per call'), an explicit alternative ('to change which bullets a CV shows, use save_variant'), and a defaulting rule for the `role` parameter. Both inclusion and exclusion conditions are covered.

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