update_resume_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the basic mutation behavior per parameter and notes the return type. It does not disclose error conditions or side effects, but for a CRUD tool, the transparency is adequate.

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 structured as a docstring and is concise. It covers the essential parameters and actions. However, the return statement is vague ('JSON with update status'), and some redundancy exists (e.g., index for contact).

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return fields. However, it lacks error handling hints or constraints on data structure per section. Overall, it is fairly complete for a mutation tool with moderate complexity.

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 0%, but the description adds detailed meaning for each parameter: section and action are enumerated in text, index is explained as required for update/delete but not for contact, and data is clarified as required for add/update. This compensates fully for the schema gap.

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 modifies resume data by adding, editing, or removing entries. It lists specific sections and actions, making the purpose explicit and distinct from sibling tools like get_resume_data which is read-only.

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 usage context: which actions are supported per section, and notes that contact only supports update. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use, so it lacks some guidance.

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