cv_tailor

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false; the description adds substantially more: idempotent-per-slug semantics, a one-AI-credit cost on first creation, a 402 on insufficient balance, and a 409 when the candidate has no seed résumé. It also clarifies the tool performs no model call, setting the agent's expectation about what work remains.

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?

Four dense sentences with zero filler: purpose+return first, then idempotency, then cost/error behavior, then the boundary against cv_context/cv_edit. The most decision-relevant facts (idempotency, credit spend) are front-loaded.

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 enumerating the returned fields (id, base, session). Combined with the cost, error-code, and prerequisite coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to handle failures.

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 100% and the single job_slug parameter is fully documented in the schema (public slug from search or facets results). The description reinforces the per-vacancy/slug scoping but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Start tailoring a CV to a vacancy") and immediately states what is returned (tailored CV id, base copy, bound session). It also differentiates itself from cv_context and cv_edit by declaring it does not call a model, so an agent can distinguish it from the reframing siblings without opening their schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit safe-call rule ("calling it again for the same slug reopens the copy that already exists, so it is safe when you do not know whether one exists") and routes follow-up work to cv_context and cv_edit. It also names the prerequisite failure path (409 when no résumé exists, tell them to upload one; you cannot), which is genuine when/when-not guidance.

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