build_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Build' implies a generative/mutating operation, but the description says nothing about required permissions, whether it depends on prior resume-import state, idempotency, generation latency, or side effects such as overwriting a prior PDF. Only the output artifact type (PDF) is disclosed.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter schema coverage, the description is the only source of information, and it omits the job_id's origin, ordering relative to the import_resume_* siblings, and any prerequisite state. For a build/generation tool in a workflow with prepare/submit steps, that is a meaningful completeness gap.

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 0% and the single parameter job_id has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The phrase 'for a job' hints that job_id identifies a job, but the description does not explain where that id comes from (e.g. list_jobs/job_details) or whether it must exist beforehand.

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 (Build) and a specific, well-scoped resource (the tailored PDF resume for a job), which is enough to distinguish it from the query siblings (find_jobs, list_jobs, job_details) and the import siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming how it differs from the import_resume_* tools, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. whether a resume must first be imported via import_resume_prepare), and no exclusions. The only guidance is implicit: the tool builds a resume for a job, so it is presumably called with a job_id.

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