upload_resume_from_url

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that by default the profile is synced with resume content, and specifies a 5MB size limit. However, it omits the default behavior of replacing the primary resume (only implied by the schema's isAltResume) and any information about authentication or success/failure responses.

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 four sentences long and covers action, constraints, and an alternative. It is relatively concise, but the final sentence about the profile URL is somewhat wordy and could be shortened. Overall, every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The tool has no annotations or output schema, so the description should carry the full burden. It provides usages, file types, and sync behavior, but lacks a description of return values or the fact that the primary resume is replaced by default unless isAltResume is set. This leaves gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters, so coverage is 100%. The description adds a file size limit (5MB) not present in the schema, and restates the sync behavior that's already in the syncProfile parameter description. It adds little beyond 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?

The description clearly states the action with a specific verb and resource: 'Upload a resume from a publicly accessible URL.' It lists supported file types and size limit. The URL-based method distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'upload_resume_from_file', though not explicitly named.

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 provides an explicit alternative when the user lacks a hosted URL: 'they can upload it directly from their profile at https://6figr.com/profile instead.' It implies the tool should be used when a direct URL is available. However, it does not name the sibling tool 'upload_resume_from_file' as a local file alternative, so it's not fully explicit.

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