Build Resume

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

Annotations provide only a basic safety profile, so the description adds useful behavior: the resume stays editable, downloads as a PDF, defaults to private, and make_public exposes contact details to anyone with the link. The paid-plan prerequisite is also disclosed. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Three sentences carry the core action, output, template choices, privacy default, share-link caveat, and plan requirement with no wasted words. The most important function is front-loaded.

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 output schema, the description still explains the deliverable (PDF download), the editable state, and the key constraints (paid plan, privacy, explicit opt-in for public sharing). Combined with the fully documented input schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a detailed description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description mostly restates the template enum and public-link behavior already present in the schema, adding only minor framing like 'raw text' for resume_text.

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 ('Build a formatted, ATS-clean resume') and identifies the resource (raw text in the AI Applyd resume builder), the editable state, and the PDF output. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like aiapplyd_optimize_resume or aiapplyd_score_resume, which concern content improvement or scoring rather than PDF generation.

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?

It gives clear invocation context: use raw resume text, choose a template, default to private, and honor the paid-plan requirement. It also provides a strong conditional rule: only set make_public to true if the user explicitly asks for a shareable public link. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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