Preview proposed resume field changes for supported providers before confirming an update, so you can review set or remove operations and avoid unintended profile edits.
Preview a resume mutation. Disabled by default and available only when the provider advertises an approved mutation capability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| changes | Yes | ||
| provider | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful gating trait (disabled by default, capability-dependent), which is genuine added context. But it never confirms that a preview is non-mutating, what it returns, how long a preview stays valid, or what the follow-up confirmation step is — substantial gaps for a gated mutation-adjacent tool.
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 tight sentences with the gating constraint placed immediately after the purpose — no filler, nothing buried, and the most decision-relevant caveat is front-loaded.
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?
There are no annotations and no output schema, and the description does not cover the preview lifecycle or the nested changes payload. For a tool whose whole value is producing a reviewable preview before a real mutation, an agent is left guessing what it gets back and how to proceed.
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 0%, so the description should compensate, and it says nothing about either parameter. The nested 'changes' array (field/operation/value, 1–25 items) and the allowed provider enum are only discoverable by reading the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema still fully defines the structure, but no extra meaning is added.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Preview a resume mutation'), which distinguishes it from the other preview_* siblings such as preview_profile_update or preview_skills_update by naming the resume resource. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from those siblings, but the scope 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 a real availability precondition: disabled by default, usable only when the provider advertises an approved mutation capability. However, it never says which tool reveals that capability (discover_provider_capabilities is a sibling) or how the preview relates to execute_confirmed_mutation, so the when-to-use guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.