create_cv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does so by stating that creation is for a new empty CV, that the chosen name persists for the rest of the conversation, and that duplicate names are refused rather than replaced. This is meaningful behavioral information beyond simple creation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed only by essential naming and collision behavior. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

For a simple one-parameter creation tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool does, how to choose the parameter value, how the name is used later, and what happens on a duplicate. No critical guidance 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 schema already describes draft_id as 'Name of the draft to work on, as given to `create_cv`.' The description adds practical meaning: the caller should pick a short, memorable name and use it throughout the conversation. It also clarifies uniqueness expectations by noting that used names are refused.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Start a new, empty CV under a name of your choosing.' This clearly distinguishes create_cv from the sibling tools, which populate, validate, or export a CV. The naming guidance reinforces what the tool is for.

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 makes it clear this is the initialization step for a CV lifecycle and that choose a short conversational name identifies the draft going forward. It also tells the agent that reusing an existing name is refused, which prevents accidental overwrite behavior. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives, but the 'start a new, empty' wording provides sufficient context.

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