Rewrite Application Documents

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the rewritten document overwrites the one saved on each application, nothing is sent to the employer, and the call consumes the user's AI credits. That cost and overwrite disclosure is valuable for a destructive, non-idempotent tool. It stops short of saying whether the overwrite is reversible or whether the prior version is retained.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then the exclusion and the next step. Every sentence carries either a scope rule, a safety fact, or a routing instruction; nothing is padding.

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 description covers the remaining risk surface: batching limits, mutation scope, credit cost, no external side effects, and the base-resume alternative. Nothing needed to invoke 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 already documents all three fields, so the description repeats some of it (1-25 ids, ids from getmattered_get_applications, instructions in the user's own words). It does add a relational point the schema cannot express: one document_type plus one instructions string applies uniformly across the whole batch of application_ids.

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 ('Rewrite the tailored resume or cover letter of applications that are not sent yet') with an explicit scope qualifier. It is clearly distinguishable from the base-resume siblings (optimize_resume / set_resume) and from approve_applications, which it names.

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?

Gives when-to-use (applications not yet sent), when-not-to-use ('Do not use it to rewrite the base resume... use getmattered_optimize_resume, then getmattered_set_resume'), where the ids come from, and the logical next step ('Next: getmattered_approve_applications'). All routing decisions are made for the agent.

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