Create Resume Builder Draft

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write, but the description goes further: it discloses the public-link side effect ('publishes a link anyone can open'), the privacy default, the fact that no PDF is produced here, and that it 'adds a new draft and changes no existing resume.' The paid-plan requirement and the absence of PDF generation are behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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 purpose lands in the first clause, then constraints, cautions, prerequisites and the next step follow in the order an agent needs them. Each sentence carries distinct information — scope, template options, privacy rule, prerequisites, sibling exclusion — with 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?

For a three-parameter creation tool with an output schema, everything material is covered: what is created, what is not created (no PDF, no section parsing), privacy defaults, plan requirement, the sibling to use instead, and what the user must do next. Nothing needed to call it correctly is left to inference.

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 the schema already documents template, make_public and summary_text, including the contact-detail exposure of a public link and the 50–2,000 character bounds. The description mostly restates these ('Templates: classic (default), modern or minimal', 'up to 2,000 characters'), adding little the agent could not read from the schema. Baseline 3 is the right score when structured fields do the work.

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 and resource ('Create a new editable draft in the user's resume builder') and pins down exactly what gets stored ('the text the user gives saved as its summary section'). It also defines the boundaries that distinguish it from siblings ('does not split text into experience, education or skills, and it creates no PDF'), so an agent can separate it from optimize_resume and set_resume without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the condition that disqualifies this tool ('Do not use it to rewrite or tailor a resume') and routes the agent to the correct alternative ('use getmattered_optimize_resume'). It also gives a conditional rule for make_public ('only when the user explicitly asks to share it') and a stated prerequisite ('Requires a paid plan'), covering when to use, when not to, and the next step.

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