Replace Base Resume Data

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but they do not say whether the write merges or overwrites. The description fills that gap: 'PUT replaces the whole resume body' plus 'the full ResumeData object, required' tells the agent anything omitted from data is lost, which is genuinely additive. It still omits auth requirements and what happens on invalid data.

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 core action and payload requirement; nothing padding. Minor redundancy with the title ('Replace Base Resume Data') but it earns its place by adding the PUT/replacement semantics.

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 destructive mutation with a nested unschematized payload and no output schema, the description is minimal but directionally adequate. It leaves the ResumeData structure entirely undocumented and never mentions the slug parameter or failure behavior, so an agent still has gaps before calling it safely.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies that data is the required full ResumeData object and that display_name is optional ('optionally also update'), but says nothing about slug and gives no shape for the nested data object.

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 ('Replace a base resume's data') and defines the primary payload as the full ResumeData object. 'PUT replaces the whole resume body' implicitly distinguishes it from partial-edit siblings such as edit_base_resume, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'PUT replaces the whole resume body' implies the tool is for wholesale replacement rather than a patch, which is useful routing context. However, it never states when to choose this over edit_base_resume, set_base_resume_identity, or create_base_resume_from_kb, and lists no prerequisites.

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