tailor_resume

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only unverifiable marketing claims ('real-time', '9 industry disciplines') and leaves the key behavioral question unanswered: whether tailoring produces an in-memory rewritten resume, a file on disk, or just recommendations — which matters given the sibling confirm_export exists.

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?

It is a single sentence, which is efficient, but a large share of it is filler adjectives ('Universal multi-role', 'real-time', 'across 9 industry disciplines') that carry no actionable meaning. The core capability is front-loaded, so it is not badly structured, just padded.

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 tool that rewrites a candidate's resume, the description omits essentials: whether the original file is modified, what the tailored output looks like conceptually, and what happens when target_job/target_role are omitted. Annotations and the output schema cover safety and return shape, but the workflow context is still missing.

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% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema — it does not explain how path, target_job, and target_role interact or which combination is required for a useful result.

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 names the resource (resume) and the capability area (ATS tailoring, keyword optimization, gap analysis), so the general purpose is inferable. But it is written as a marketing tagline ('Universal multi-role... across 9 industry disciplines') rather than a verb+resource statement, and it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as analyze_resume, match_jobs_to_resume, or get_resume_insights.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no indication of when to pick this over analyze_resume or match_jobs_to_resume, no prerequisites (e.g., whether a target_role or target_job is needed for meaningful tailoring), and no exclusions. The agent must infer selection purely from the name.

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