edit_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. It discloses that editing replaces content ('replaces everything') and offers two behavioral modes (full vs. targeted replacement). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling (e.g., if file doesn't exist), side effects, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap.

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 purpose, followed by a bullet-like list of args with explanations, and ends with a clear usage rule. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand.

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's complexity (mutation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and usage modes. However, as a mutation tool, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., error cases, idempotency) to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 adds significant meaning: it explains that 'filename' is the file to edit, 'content' is for full replacement, and 'find'/'replace' work together for targeted edits. It clarifies the mutual exclusivity of the two modes. This goes well beyond the schema's basic titles, though it doesn't detail formats (e.g., LaTeX syntax).

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 tool's purpose: 'Edit an existing LaTeX resume file.' It specifies the verb ('edit') and resource ('LaTeX resume file'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'create_resume' or 'read_resume' beyond the 'existing' qualifier, which is implied but not stated as a distinction.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: 'Either provide 'content' for full replacement, or 'find' and 'replace' for targeted edit.' This explains the two usage modes. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. 'create_resume' for new files or 'add_education' for incremental updates), but the context is clear enough for basic decision-making.

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