Upload master resume

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose an important trait: 'The original is stored immutably and never modified.' However, it omits critical behavioral details such as whether an existing master resume is overwritten, how duplicate uploads are handled, authentication/permission requirements, or any side effects. Given the write nature, more transparency would be expected.

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 exactly two sentences, perfectly concise, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every word adds value — formats, input options, and the immutability guarantee. There is no fluff 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?

The tool is simple, so the description covers the basics: purpose, input options, and a key behavior. However, it leaves gaps: it doesn't specify what happens if both 'path' and 'text' are provided, whether it returns a success indicator or ID, or how it handles existing uploads. Given there is no output schema, a small note on expected return would improve completeness.

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%, so both parameters are already fully described in the schema. The description adds only marginal value: it marks 'path' as preferred and clarifies the file is on the user's machine, which is hinted at in the schema's 'Absolute local path'. This is helpful but does not significantly extend the schema semantics.

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 ('Register') and a clear resource ('the user's ONE master resume'), and enumerates accepted formats (PDF, DOCX, TXT, Markdown). It unambiguously conveys the tool's action and distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_master_resume by focusing on registration/upload rather than analysis.

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 gives parameter usage guidance ('Provide either a local file path (preferred) or raw text') but does not explicitly address when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., if a resume already exists). The 'preferred' note for path is helpful, but no exclusionary context or alternative routing is provided.

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