import_resume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the required candidate role and the upsert (import-or-update) nature of the call, but says nothing about how updates reconcile with existing data (merge vs replace), size limits on the Base64 payload, or failure behavior. The auth-role disclosure is real added value, but mutation semantics are incomplete.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, and the bracketed sections (work experience fields, project rules, attachment rules) are load-bearing given 0% schema coverage rather than filler. There is mild redundancy in the repeated emphasis phrases ('切勿遗漏'), but overall it is dense without being bloated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the most failure-prone inputs. Still, with 10 parameters and zero schema documentation, the absence of any guidance for the education, languages, certificates and basic_info fields, plus the unaddressed relationship to upload_resume_attachment, leaves meaningful gaps.

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% for 10 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does substantial work: it enumerates required subfields for work_experiences and projects and explains the three resume_file_* attachment parameters. It leaves skills, education, languages, certificates and basic_info entirely unspecified, so it is good but not complete.

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 pair (import or update a candidate resume) and clarifies it is an upsert of structured resume data. It clearly separates the parsing burden onto the agent. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling upload_resume_attachment, which seems to overlap with the attachment portion of this tool.

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?

It gives a clear precondition (requires candidate role) and a when-to condition for the attachment path (local PDF/Word/image files). But it offers no exclusions and, more importantly, does not acknowledge the sibling upload_resume_attachment, which a reasonable agent would consider for file uploads, leaving ambiguity about which tool to pick.

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