create_base_resumeCreate a new base resume by providing a slug, display name, and career data; use it as the foundation for tailoring resumes to job postings.
Create a new base resume. Slug must be lowercase alphanumeric/underscores, not 'master'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| display_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real operational constraint (slug format and the reserved 'master' value) but says nothing about failure modes on duplicate slugs or what the returned object contains.
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 short sentences, no filler, purpose stated first and the constraint second. Efficient, though extremely terse for a creation tool.
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 write tool with a nested free-form 'data' object, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description leaves too much unexplained — what shape 'data' takes and what a successful create returns are both unspecified.
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% across three required parameters. The description only constrains 'slug' (lowercase alphanumeric/underscores, not 'master'), leaving 'display_name' and especially the nested 'data' object entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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+resource ('Create a new base resume') that is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling create_base_resume_from_kb, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative create_base_resume_from_kb. The agent must infer from the name alone which creation path to take.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.