delete_resume

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states the core destructive fact: both the stored resume entry and the original file are deleted. However, it does not disclose irreversibility, potential permission requirements, or side effects (such as what happens if the resume is set as default). This is a moderate level of transparency, better than a bare 'delete' but missing several important details.

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 no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the action and the scope (including the original file). This is exemplary conciseness.

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 simple 1-parameter delete tool, the description is largely complete. It states the primary action and the additional effect on the original file. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The only gap is the lack of any note on irreversibility or prerequisites, but given the low complexity, this is acceptable.

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?

The schema has one required parameter 'name' with a string type, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the parameter or clarify what 'name' refers to (resume name vs. file name). Since the schema provides no description and the description doesn't compensate, the agent lacks sufficient semantic detail for the parameter.

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's function: 'Delete a stored resume and its original file.' The verb 'Delete' and the specific resource (stored resume plus original file) make the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_saved_job since it explicitly targets resumes.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. For instance, it doesn't clarify whether this should be used only when a resume is no longer needed or if there are restrictions (e.g., cannot delete default resume). The agent must infer usage from the name and purpose, which is insufficient.

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