build_cv

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

Annotations cover only the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), but the description goes further: it discloses overwrite semantics ('replacing earlier builds of the same variant and language'), the default output location, the return payload (files, pages, ats_ok, failed checks), and even what to do on failure ('report it, never reword the person's text'). That is unusually rich behavioral context.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the routing guidance before the file/return details; each sentence carries distinct information. It runs slightly long across five sentences, but none are padding.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return contents (files, page counts, ats_ok, failed checks), the output destination, the overwrite behavior, and failure-handling policy, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (lang, formats, out_dir, profile, variant) are already fully documented in the schema; the description adds only the variant+language replacement rule and restates the out_dir default. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Render a CV variant to PDF and/or DOCX') plus a secondary action (ATS verification), and explicitly names the siblings it is not: build_letter for cover letters and verify_pdf for PDFs made elsewhere. An agent can distinguish it from all 30 siblings without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('use it when the person wants the files') and two named alternatives with the conditions that select them (cover letter -> build_letter; PDF made elsewhere -> verify_pdf). Nothing is left to inference.

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