Generate application materials

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

Goes well beyond the annotations, which only flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description specifies exactly what destruction means ('Existing materials can be overwritten'), that generation is asynchronous, and that allowance is spent per request regardless of subset — details an agent cannot derive from structured fields.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose before cost and async behavior. No filler; each sentence contributes a distinct fact (scope, subset handling, cost, side effects).

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations plus description cover the safety and behavioral profile. Cost, async settlement, overwrite risk, and subset defaults are all present — nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the schema already documents both jobId and assets, including 'Omit for all three'. The description largely restates the assets semantics, adding only the allowance-per-subset angle. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Queues') and enumerates exactly what a pack contains: resume, cover letter and employer-question answers for one saved role. This distinguishes it from single-asset siblings like generate_resume or generate_outreach implicitly, but never names them, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Conveys cost context ('one pack allowance regardless of subset') and the default (omission requests all three), which helps an agent decide whether to request the full pack. However, it never states when to choose this over generate_resume/generate_outreach or what preparation state the role must be in, leaving usage to inference.

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