Rewrite experience bullets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is 'draft-only', generates text locally, and does not send data to LinkedIn. It also warns against inventing metrics, which is a critical behavioral constraint.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the risk warning and then efficiently states purpose, behavior, and constraints. Every sentence provides essential information.

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 has 3 parameters, one required nested object, and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, risk, parameter usage constraints, and behavioral traits. It could be more explicit about output characteristics, but the local draft nature is clear.

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%, but the description adds value with warnings and clarifications, such as 'Real metrics you remember... NEVER invent metrics' for knownMetrics, and 'The role to rewrite' for the experience object. This enhances meaning beyond schema descriptions.

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 tool rewrites job experience bullets with specific improvements (strong verbs, technical keywords, measurable impact), and the name and title reinforce this. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'rewrite_about_section' by targeting experience bullets.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Rewrite job experience bullets' and includes important constraints like 'Never invents metrics — supply knownMetrics' and 'Generates draft text locally. Nothing is sent to LinkedIn.' While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the sibling tools list provides context.

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