import_resume_prepare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call returns 'the prompt to follow' rather than completing an import, but says nothing about whether it writes files, what permissions are needed, or whether it is safe to re-run.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action first and the input clarification parenthetical immediately after. No wasted words.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the essentials are covered, but as the opening step of a prepare/submit pair the description omits the follow-up step and any indication of what the returned prompt expects. An agent can call it, but not confidently place it in the workflow.

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 0% and the parameter name 'docx_path' is misleading, so the description earns real credit by stating it is the path to either a .docx or PDF file. It still omits path format (absolute/relative) and validation behavior.

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 and resource ('Start a resume import from a Word (.docx) or PDF file') and clarifies the accepted input formats. It does not explicitly name the sibling it hands off to (import_resume_submit_tex), so sibling differentiation is only implied by the prepare/submit naming.

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 word 'Start' implies this is the first step of a flow, but the description never says when to use it versus import_resume_submit_tex or build_resume, nor what happens next. Usage must be inferred from the two-step naming convention.

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