Validate a hand-edited or externally generated resume against an evidence-labelled profile to confirm every claim and flag unsupported facts.
Run the factual-validation gate over a resume object independently. Use this to check a resume that was edited by hand or generated elsewhere.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resume | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a standalone validation/gate operation (implying non-destructive, independently invoked), but says nothing about failure behavior, whether it blocks anything, or what a validated/failed result looks like.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the routing condition. No filler or redundancy.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and an opaque nested 'resume' object, an agent still lacks what the validation checks, what the resume object must contain, and what success/failure returns. It does not compensate for the missing structured data.
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?
One parameter with 0% schema description coverage and a nested object whose structure is entirely undocumented. The description only says the input is a 'resume object', adding no field-level meaning beyond the schema's bare type declaration.
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?
Specific verb+resource: it runs a 'factual-validation gate' over a 'resume object', which is a clearly identifiable operation distinct from tailor_resume (generation) and analyse_job. It does not explicitly name any sibling as the alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
It gives an explicit when-to-use condition: invoke it for resumes 'edited by hand or generated elsewhere', and the word 'independently' signals it is not part of the normal pipeline. No when-not or named alternative, but the context is clear enough to route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.