clone_resume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates cloning creates a new resume, but does not mention whether the original is modified, whether the clone is a deep copy, what the return value is, or any permission/error requirements. This is minimal behavioral information for 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?

The description is a single compact sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action ('Clone') and immediately conveys the purpose and key distinction. Every word is necessary.

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?

The tool is simple and has clear parameters, but with no annotations or output schema, the description should convey return values or side effects. It does not explain what the clone operation returns (e.g., new resume ID) or whether it fully copies content, which leaves an agent uncertain about the outcome. This is comparable to the update_drive example, which also scored 2 for completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already describes 'resumeId' as the source and 'title' as the new title. The description's mention of 'existing resume' and 'new title' adds little beyond the schema, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Clone') and resource ('resume') with the outcome ('with a new title'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like create_resume, update_resume, and import_resume. It precisely states what the tool does in a single concise sentence.

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 description implies the tool is for creating a copy of an existing resume with a new title, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as create_resume or import_resume. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so the usage context is only implied.

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