Sync Resume to Career KB

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: zero LLM calls, new material lands as DRAFT points with origin=base_sync, the 0.80 cosine dedup rule that keeps existing wording rather than adding a duplicate point, the explicit 'never edits resumes' guarantee, rerun no-op semantics, and the compared_wording=false fallback when the embedder fails. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs before calling a write tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then the side-effect contract in descending order of importance. The final sentence about compared_wording is dense but conveys a real edge case; no sentence is 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 the description compensates by describing what the call produces (draft points, wording merges, compared_wording flag) and what it does not do (edit resumes, duplicate on rerun). For a one-parameter, idempotent write tool this covers everything an agent needs beyond the slug ambiguity.

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% and the single parameter 'slug' is completely undocumented in the schema. The description only implies it names 'one base resume'; it never says whether the slug is a base-resume slug or a KB entity slug, nor what format it takes. With one required identifier and no other source of truth, this gap is significant.

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: sync one base resume into the Career KB. That is clearly distinct from edit_base_resume or kb_edit_point, but the description never distinguishes it from the similarly named siblings kb_ingest_resume, kb_capture, kb_add_points or sync_now, so the agent must infer which entry point produces draft points from a base resume.

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?

Usage is only implied by the operation itself (syncing a base resume yields drafts the user approves at /career). There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over kb_ingest_resume or sync_now, nor any exclusion or prerequisite. The 'safe to rerun' note helps operationally but is not routing guidance.

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