Strengthen a whole application

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it discloses the cost model (one refine allowance per changed asset), an input precondition (evidenceIds required when emphasis adds numbers/titles/employers/dates/credentials), a rejection rule (unsupported resume entry headers), and partial-failure semantics (completed edits retained if a later asset fails). That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive multi-asset write.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and cost, then preconditions, then failure behavior. No filler, though the clause 'emphasis adding numbers, titles...' is grammatically compressed and takes a second read to parse as a conditional.

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?

For a destructive mutation with an output schema present, the description covers cost, preconditions, rejection, and failure behavior. The main gap is absent guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling editing tools, but 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 67% and the description meaningfully supplements it by defining the dependency between the two optional parameters: emphasis that introduces new factual claims requires evidenceIds. It does not clarify the applicationId parameter or the maxItems/format expectations, but it adds real cross-parameter semantics.

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 ('Improves') and resource ('an application's existing materials') scoped to a role and recorded career evidence. It is distinguishable from narrow siblings like edit_resume or edit_cover_letter by operating on the whole application, though it never explicitly names which sibling it replaces.

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?

Usage context is implied through constraints (one refine allowance per changed asset, evidence needed for certain emphasis), but there is no explicit 'use this when / use X instead' guidance relative to update_application_materials, edit_resume, or generate_pack. The agent must infer the selection condition.

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