tailor_cv

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does well by stating that the tool returns a tailored CV while preserving the template system and ATS-safe structure, and even mentions the 'Unlimited AI tailoring on every plan' aspect. It does not cover side effects or errors, but for a transformation tool, the output and preservation behavior are adequately disclosed.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that gets to the point quickly. The opening marketing phrase 'Unlimited AI tailoring on every plan' is not strictly operational, but it is brief and does not harm the clarity. Overall, it is concise without unnecessary repetition.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, nested cv object) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description needs to provide more structural context. It omits crucial details on the cv object structure and template_id, and it does not describe the return format or error handling. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without guessing.

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 description explicitly mentions 'vacancy_text' and 'instructions' (emphasise, translate, demote noise), but it fails to explain the 'cv' parameter (how to provide the CV, url/base64) and the 'template_id' parameter. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description is responsible for clarifying parameter meanings, and it only covers half of them, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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: it takes vacancy text and instructions, then returns a tailored CV. It also specifies the capabilities (emphasize matches, translate, demote noise) and the resource (CV), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like format_cv or anonymize_cv.

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 a clear context for when to use this tool: when the user has a vacancy text and wants the CV tailored to it. It implicitly suggests the workflow (paste vacancy text, give instructions) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks a full exclusionary guideline.

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