add_work_experience

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool appends after existing jobs and preserves the submission order in the printed CV, which is non-obvious and valuable. It does not cover error cases or side effects, but for an append operation this is adequate.

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 short sentences with the main verb first and an explanatory second sentence. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is a simple append operation; the description plus the rich input schema and output schema cover what an agent needs. The ordering behavior, which is the only non-obvious detail, is explained. No critical information is 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?

The description adds no parameter-specific information; the ordering note does not explain any field. However, the input schema already documents draft_id and the full WorkExperience object with per-field descriptions, so the agent is not left guessing. The description's omission is acceptable, yielding a baseline score.

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 states a specific verb ('Add'), a concrete resource ('one job to the CV'), and the ordering clause clarifies the operation's place in the document. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like add_education or add_language_skill.

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 instructs the agent to submit jobs in print order (most recent first for Europass), which is a practical usage rule for multiple calls. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not conditions, so the usage is implied rather than explicit.

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