Sync Resume to Career KB

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: zero LLM calls (deterministic), the exact state change (new material lands as DRAFT points with origin=base_sync), that approval happens at /career, and that the source resume is never modified. It even explains why reruns are safe, going past the bare idempotentHint flag.

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?

Extremely tight: what it does first, then scoping, then side-effect semantics. Every clause carries distinct information (determinism, draft origin, approval location, no source edits, idempotency) with no filler.

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 is no output schema and only one parameter, so the description carries most of the load and does it well for behavior: state changes, determinism, and side effects are all covered. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'slug' parameter and any error behavior for an unknown slug, which prevents a 5.

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 there is one required parameter, 'slug', which the schema does not document at all. The description implies the slug identifies 'one base resume' but gives no format, no examples, and no hint about how to obtain a valid value (e.g., from list_base_resumes). With low coverage the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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 with directionality: 'Sync one base resume into the Career KB.' An agent knows the source (a base resume) and the destination (the Career KB). It does not differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as kb_ingest_resume, kb_capture, or sync_now, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides operational guidance ('Safe to rerun — a second call is a no-op when already in sync') which tells the agent repeated invocation is harmless, and 'Never edits resumes' bounds the side effects. However it never states when to choose this over kb_ingest_resume, kb_capture, or sync_now, and gives no prerequisites for the slug. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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