Add candidate profile

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: extracted claims are tagged with confidence 'user_claim' and are unverified assertions by the candidate, which tells the agent how to treat downstream results. Annotations only cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints; the semantic 'not verified' caveat is valuable. Doesn't disclose return shape or duplicate-profile behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the critical semantic caveat. No filler.

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?

Annotation set (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false) matches a registration tool, and the description covers the write action plus claim semantics. No output schema exists, yet the description explains the key return concept (individually-citable claims with confidence). Lacks explicit 'what happens on duplicate candidate' detail, hence not 5.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema (name, cvText, summary, headline). The description adds only format guidance ('Markdown or plain text'), which the schema already states, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Registers') and resource ('a candidate's CV') plus the generative action ('extracts individually-citable claims'). Far clearer than siblings like careerproof_add_project_evidence, which the description implicitly distinguishes by focusing on the candidate's own CV.

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?

Implies usage (onboarding a candidate's CV before scoring/matching), but never explicitly says when to use this vs careerproof_add_project_evidence or careerproof_index_repository, nor any prerequisites. Adequate but no alternative routing.

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