civify_tailor_cv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the tailoring actions but not critical traits: whether the source file is overwritten or a new document is produced, what the response contains, or that this appears to be a paid operation (given the civify_get_pay_per_cv_pricing sibling).

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the specific transformations, with zero filler.

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?

Adequate for the core purpose, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say more about the result (does it return tailored text, a file path, a diff?) and cost/auth requirements implied by sibling pricing tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description reinforces the optional cover-letter toggle via 'optional targeted cover letter,' but adds no format, length, or content expectations 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?

States a specific verb (tailor) and resource (resume/CV) against a target job description, and enumerates sub-actions: optimizing bullets, highlighting matching skills, and generating a cover letter. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like parse_cv or score_ats, though the description never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over civify_score_ats, civify_parse_cv, or civify_scrape_job, and no ordering/prerequisite hints (e.g., that a resume must be parsed first). Usage is implied by the verb only.

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