Write a cover letter .docx

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool writes a cover letter, uses the stored profile, and returns the output path, word count, and unresolved bracketed prompts. It does not mention overwrite/failure behavior or the need for a pre-existing profile, but the write action is explicit.

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 two concise, front-loaded sentences. It states the action and scope immediately, then adds valuable return-value context. There is no filler or redundant rewording of the schema.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers core returns and document scope, but omits required parameters, preconditions, overwrite semantics, and how to choose this over resume_create/proposal_create. It is minimally viable but has clear 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 description coverage is only 63%, and the description adds little per-parameter meaning. The 'bracketed prompt' phrase echoes what the highlights schema already says; parameters like role, company, and hiring_manager remain undocumented in both the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('write'), a specific resource ('one-page cover letter'), and a clear source ('from the stored profile'). It also gives the document structure ('opening, fit, proof, close'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like resume_create or proposal_create.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use it: when a one-page cover letter should be written from the stored profile. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended trigger is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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