set_personal_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool 'replaces anything set before' and 'overwrites rather than merges,' which is critical non-obvious behavior for an agent to know. It also highlights that this section is mandatory in a finished CV, providing additional context beyond a simple mutation.

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 two short sentences, with the core action and overwrite behavior front-loaded in the first sentence. Every phrase earns its place: the scope, the mandatory nature, the update cadence, and the overwrite semantics. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 with no annotations, two parameters (one being a nested object), and an output schema, the description covers the crucial non-obvious facts: the section is required and the operation overwrites rather than merges. The input schema documents field formats and required names, and the output schema exists, so return-value details are unnecessary. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 does not enumerate parameters or explain their meaning beyond telling the agent to send 'full details.' Schema coverage is 50% at the top level: draft_id is described, while the info parameter relies on the nested PersonalInfo definition, which does contain descriptions for each field. The description adds general guidance about completeness but does not compensate for the missing top-level info parameter description beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Record who the CV is about, replacing anything set before.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and, combined with the sibling list (add_work_experience, add_education, etc.), unambiguously distinguishes it from tools that modify other CV sections. It also communicates the unique scope of this section.

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 says when to use the tool ('Send it again with the full details whenever you learn more') and clarifies that it should always be populated because 'a finished CV cannot leave out' this section. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but sibling tool names make those alternatives obvious. The overwrite warning is a useful usage caveat.

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