enhance_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Use AI' without explaining outcomes, limitations, non-determinism, or any side effects. It does not mention that results may vary, that it is a generative operation, or what it returns, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action ('Use AI to enhance or rewrite') and immediately specifies the resource ('resume text'), making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns, but it does not. It also lacks usage guidance, behavioral notes, and does not explain how the 'resumeContext' parameter influences the enhancement. Given the tool's complexity and missing annotations, the description is not complete enough.

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 description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does align with the selectedText field. No additional semantic value is contributed, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'enhance or rewrite' and the resource 'resume text', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'tailor_resume' which may overlap in functionality, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 should be used when enhancing or rewriting resume text, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like chat_with_resume or tailor_resume. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations, so it only achieves 'implied usage'.

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