upload_resume_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose useful behavior: the candidate role requirement (auth need), the accepted formats (PDF, DOCX, DOC, PNG, JPG), and that the local file is read and Base64-encoded. It omits size limits and whether an existing attachment is overwritten, which would round out a mutation 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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no padding: purpose, then when-to-use, then the mechanical how. Efficient, though slightly list-heavy.

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 needn't be explained. For a mutation tool the description covers role, formats, and encoding, leaving only overwrite behavior and size constraints unstated.

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% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains file_name and file_base64 (including the Base64 encoding step), which is valuable, but file_type is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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: uploading/supplementing the original resume attachment for the current candidate. It distinguishes itself from sibling import_resume by scoping to the attachment file rather than the resume import itself.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (import_resume) and the condition that selects this tool: when import_resume was imported without an attachment, or when the user separately needs to update/resubmit the original. Clear when-to-use routing.

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