subir-cv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the preview-only behavior when aplicar is false and the optional replacement, but it omits whether an upload duplicates or overwrites existing CVs when no reemplazar_id is given, and says nothing about permissions or irreversibility of replacement.

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?

One dense sentence plus a short preview clause, with the source and destination front-loaded. No filler, though the parenthetical about cv_pdf makes the opening slightly heavy.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about the default of aplicar and what the preview returns. It covers the main flow adequately but leaves an agent guessing on duplicate/overwrite behavior and the dry-run output shape.

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 67% and the description adds real meaning: cv_pdf source, version selection when multiple versions exist, and the dry-run meaning of aplicar. reemplazar_id is only cross-referenced to listar-mis-cv, leaving its exact semantics largely to 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?

States a specific verb (sube) and resource (CV en PDF del perfil maestro) plus the destination (archivos de empleo) and the replace option. An agent understands exactly what is uploaded and from where, though no sibling is named explicitly to differentiate it.

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?

'Sin aplicar solo muestra lo que haría' conveys the dry-run/preview mode, and 'opcionalmente reemplaza uno existente' indicates the replace path. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g. listar-mis-cv is only referenced inside the schema) and no prerequisites.

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