llmconveyors-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully states 'Overwrites any existing master resume' (destructive behavior) and 'Requires scope: resume:write' (authentication needs). However, it does not disclose rate limits, idempotency behavior, or what the tool returns upon success.

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 well-constructed sentences that front-load the core action (upsert) and sequentially layer context (default behavior, destruction warning, auth requirement, sibling workflows). No redundant words or tautologies; every clause earns its place.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the operation's side effects (overwrites existing), authorization scope, and relationships to sibling tools. It lacks only a brief note about the return value or success confirmation, which would be helpful for an agent invoking an upsert operation.

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%, with all three parameters (label, rawText, structuredData) fully documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema itself, though it hints at the structuredData parameter's purpose by mentioning extracting data 'before saving.' With complete schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Create or replace the user's master resume (upsert)'—a specific verb plus resource that immediately clarifies the operation. It further distinguishes from siblings by stating the master resume is 'used as the default resume for job-hunter-run when no other resume is provided,' establishing its relationship to other tools in the ecosystem.

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?

Provides explicit alternative invocation patterns: 'Use master-resume-get to check if one already exists' and 'Use resume-parse to extract structured data from a file before saving.' Also clarifies integration context by mentioning job-hunter-run, giving the agent clear workflow guidance on when this tool is appropriate versus its siblings.

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