Save Resume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well by explicitly stating that the tool replaces whatever was stored before. It also advises reading the current CV back before editing only part, mitigating the risk of data loss. It does not discuss persistence or authorization, but those are less critical here.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, input modality, and overwrite/read-first behavior. There is no filler, and the most important behavioral warning is clearly stated.

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 one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema present, the definition is complete. It covers input form, destructive overwrite behavior, and an editing safeguard; nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and already describes the text parameter as the full CV in plain text or Markdown. The description adds no additional parameter-level format, constraints, or examples, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Store') and resource ('user's CV') and connects it to the downstream purpose of tailoring against real postings. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like set_profile or add_resume_note.

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?

Explains the expected input mode (pasted chat text, not files/folders) and gives a conditional workflow for partial edits: read the current version back first. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not conditions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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