Upload CV or assignment

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write with open-world effects, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the file must be local (not a URL) and that the two accepted kinds are resume and assignment, but says nothing about overwriting existing files, size/format limits, or required permissions.

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 clean sentence with the key noun (local file) and accepted kinds front-loaded; nothing is redundant. It is arguably under-specified rather than overstated, but there is 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?

A three-parameter required mutation tool with no output schema and one-third schema coverage; the description does not clarify the job_application_id target, success/failure behavior, or limits on file type and size. An agent has enough to attempt the call but not enough to call it confidently.

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 only 33%: file_path is documented ('Absolute path on this computer') and the type enum is self-describing, but job_application_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The description's 'resume or assignment' wording mirrors the enum values but adds no real meaning, and it never explains that attachment targets a job application ID rather than a candidate.

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: attach a local file (resume or assignment) to a candidate. The tool's action is unambiguous, though it does not name or distinguish itself from plausible siblings like update_candidate or create_candidate.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., the candidate/job application must already exist), and no alternatives. Usage is only loosely implied by the word 'Attach'.

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