Set a CV document as the primary resume for auto-apply uploads, so job applications use the chosen file.
Set a CV as the default/primary document for auto-apply resume uploads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes | The CV document ID to set as primary |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful consequence — the setting drives auto-apply resume uploads — but omits what happens to the previously-defaulted document (overwrite vs. coexist) and whether the change requires the document to be an existing 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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, zero wasted words. Nothing to trim.
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?
For a single-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. The remaining gap — the effect on any existing default — is minor but would matter for a write operation with no annotation coverage.
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 100% for the single document_id parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb (set) plus resource (CV as default/primary document) with a stated scope: auto-apply resume uploads. An agent can tell what the tool does at a glance, though it doesn't name or distinguish itself from nearby document siblings (get_documents, rename_document, generate_and_store_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?
Usage is only implied through the phrase 'for auto-apply resume uploads'; there is no explicit when-to-use, no precondition (document must already exist / must be a CV), and no named alternative. Adequate but leaves routing entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.