Set Resume Target

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses partial-update semantics ('only the fields passed change'), clearing conventions ([] and ""), an atomic 422 failure that 'saves none of the fields', and explicit no-side-effect guarantees for content/versions/PDF. The idempotentHint is matched and enriched by this 'only passed fields change' behavior.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, opening with the core purpose and partial-update rule before enumerating fields. Every clause adds real information (limits, clear sentinels, error behavior), though the field-by-field list makes it long enough to be close to overstuffed.

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 output schema and 8 undocumented parameters, the description supplies update semantics, per-field meaning, validation constraints, clearing behavior, and failure/atomicity guarantees. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without further context.

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?

With 0% schema coverage across 8 parameters, the description carries the full load and does so thoroughly: it explains countries (ISO codes and their scoring/recommendation effect), role_category/role_label, company and focus (free-text, 80-char cap), display_name, and color_hue (0-359, UI-only). It even documents clear-value sentinels and validation ranges that the bare schema omits.

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: setting the targeting/identity metadata a base resume is written for. It is clearly distinguished from the many siblings that touch resume content (update_base_resume, edit_base_resume) by explicitly noting content, versions and PDF are never touched.

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?

The intended scope is strongly implied by contrast ('Resume content, versions and the PDF are never touched'), which effectively signals this is for metadata-only changes rather than content edits. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or states when to prefer this over update_base_resume/edit_base_resume, leaving the routing to inference.

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