save_resume_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the single-root tree invariant, foreign-key enforcement, verbatim raw storage, that it NEVER raises, and enumerates the exact failure codes (invalid_parent, parent_not_found, job_not_found, etc.). This is more behavioral detail than most schemas or annotations provide.

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 key guarantee is front-loaded and the Args/Returns structure is scannable. Slight bloat from internal jargon ('the FK is real now, D1/D8') that adds nothing for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers constraints, prerequisites, success shape, and the full error vocabulary, so an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret results. Although an output schema exists, restating the result fields is a harmless reinforcement rather than a gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all four parameters with meaning beyond the bare titles – content is stored verbatim, label is caller-supplied, parent_id's None-only-on-first-save rule, and job_id's FK requirement. The constraint semantics are essential and present.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Append a new resume version to the store') and immediately clarifies the append-only nature ('Never mutates or deletes'). This cleanly separates it from read siblings like get_resume_version and list_resume_versions and from save_job_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?

It states precise prerequisites and conditions: the first save's parent_id MUST be None, subsequent saves MUST reference an existing id, and job_id requires calling save_job_analysis first and passing its returned id. The append-only scope tells the agent when this tool is NOT the right one for changes.

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