modify_cv

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only describes the process ('Parses the CV, extracts keywords... enhances the CV') without revealing side effects, such as whether the original CV is overwritten or a new file is returned. It also lacks details on permissions or irreversibility, which is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with the main action first. It is mostly concise, but the second sentence partially repeats the first ('enhances the CV with relevant keywords') and could be trimmed for even greater clarity.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., formatted file, path) or how the outputFormat parameter relates to the result. This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's end-to-end behavior.

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?

All 6 parameters are described in the schema, so the description doesn't need to add basic parameter meanings. It does mention keyword extraction and enhancement, which loosely relates to jobKeywords/jobUrl, but doesn't provide additional syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Modifies a CV to better match a job description') with a specific resource (CV) and purpose (strategically emphasizing relevant keywords). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_job_description and analyze_cv_job_match, which perform different tasks.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: to tailor a CV to a job description by emphasizing relevant keywords. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which would earn a 5.

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