add_experience

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 states the tool adds entries, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites existing experiences, requires specific file formats or permissions, handles errors (e.g., invalid filenames), or what happens on success/failure. The mention of 'works with modern template' hints at compatibility but lacks detail.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured Args section that efficiently lists parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose content.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is moderately complete. It explains the purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., mutation effects, error handling) and usage guidance relative to siblings. For a write operation with no annotations, more disclosure on side effects or constraints would improve completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all parameters: filename (resume file name), company (company name), title (job title), dates (employment dates with format example), bullets (list of bullet points), and location (optional city/state/country). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could benefit from more detail on filename constraints or bullet formatting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Add a new work experience entry') and resource ('to a resume'), distinguishing it from siblings like add_education (which adds education entries) or edit_resume (which modifies existing content). It specifies it works with modern templates, providing additional context about compatibility.

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 implies usage by specifying it adds work experience entries to resumes, suggesting it should be used when creating or updating a resume with employment history. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_resume for modifying existing experiences or create_resume for initial setup, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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