Archive Base Resume

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, while the description discloses the mechanism (sets archived_at), confirms reversibility, and enumerates exactly what is preserved (JSON, PDF, TEX, version history) and what changes (drops out of list_base_resumes' default view). No contradiction with annotations; mutation with idempotent=true is consistent with re-archiving being harmless.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, then mechanism, then the undo path. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or annotations.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts an agent needs: what changes, what persists, effect on other tools, and how to reverse it. Nothing material about calling 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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the slug parameter, so it adds no meaning about identifier format or where to obtain it. With only one unambiguous parameter in a family where slug is the standard key, the gap is minor, but the description does no compensating work.

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 and resource ('Hide a base resume from pickers') and immediately disambiguates from a sibling action by clarifying it is not a delete. An agent can distinguish this from update_base_resume, edit_base_resume, or a delete-style operation without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context for use (removing a base from pickers while preserving it) and names the exact reversal path, unarchive_base_resume. It stops short of stating when NOT to archive (e.g., to permanently remove a base, use something else), so it is clear but not fully exclusionary.

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