format_cv

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

Discloses behavioral traits such as ATS-safe typography, compliant variants for regulated clients, and sub-60-second completion. However, with no annotations, it lacks broader details like authentication, error behavior, or side effects on the original CV.

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?

Two sentences with a clear initial verb ('Turn'), front-loaded with the core purpose. The phrase 'Mirrors FormaCV’s promise' adds some marketing flavor but does not significantly bloat the description.

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?

Covers purpose and some behavioral guarantees, but with no output schema, it should clarify the return format or whether the operation is asynchronous. The description implies the CV lands on the ATS record but does not explain the direct return to the caller.

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 compensate. It mentions 'template' but does not explain template_id, cv source semantics, or options like ats_safe and language. The schema alone provides minimal guidance through names/types.

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 tool's function: turning a CV into a client-ready PDF/DOCX in a branded template. It distinguishes from siblings like tailor_cv (content tailoring) and anonymize_cv by focusing on final formatted output.

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?

Provides context for where it can be used (inline in ATS or via MCP) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like tailor_cv or bulk_format. The usage is implied by the tool's purpose rather than explicitly stated.

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