cv_reframe_bullet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavioral traits: modification of the draft (replacement or addition) and logging to cv_notes.md. However, it does not mention potential destructive nature (overwriting an existing bullet), error conditions, or state whether changes are reversible. Some behavioral context is given, but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear first-line summary followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or irrelevant content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the absence of annotations, output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is expected to be thorough. It covers the main function, parameter roles, and side effect. However, it does not specify prerequisites (e.g., draft must exist), error handling, or the exact content logged to cv_notes.md. It also omits the return value or success confirmation, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 explain parameters. It describes org as selecting the experience entry, explains the logic between original and rewritten, and defines kind with its three options. It also covers justification. However, the required parameter draft_id is not explained at all, and org's format is not specified. This leaves gaps for the agent.

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 the specific action 'Reword (or add) one experience bullet on a draft AND log it to cv_notes.md', identifying the verb ('reword/add'), resource ('experience bullet on a draft'), and side effect ('log to cv_notes.md'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the tool for making bullets punchy, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 description explicitly says 'This is the right tool for making bullets punchy' and explains the roles of the parameters (org, original, rewritten, kind) to guide usage. It defines the three 'kind' values (reframe, stretch, fabrication) with their implications. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, but the context of siblings implies it's the only bullet reframing tool.

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