Store your CV facts

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool persists profile content and returns a count of what was stored, but it does not describe update-versus-merge-versus-replace semantics or what happens to an existing profile; that is left to the schema's merge/replace parameter descriptions. The description is minimally transparent and nowhere contradicts the schema.

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?

Two sentences, with the core action and content categories front-loaded and the return-value statement adding useful operational information. There is no filler or repetition.

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 schema is rich, covering defaults, required flags, ordering constraints, and Pro-only restrictions, so the description does not need to repeat those details. The description supplies the missing high-level context and return behavior; only an explicit note about merge/replace preconditions would make it fully self-contained.

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?

The schema already documents the majority of parameters, including name/email defaults, merge/replace requirements, experience ordering, and Pro-only fields. The description groups facts at a higher level (contact details, skills, education, roles with bullets) but adds little field-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'Store the profile' and lists the fact categories it accepts (contact details, summary, skills, roles, education, certifications, languages). It also connects the tool to its downstream purpose, 'every resume and cover letter is built from,' which clearly distinguishes it from read-side and document-generation siblings.

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 gives clear context for when to call: it populates the shared profile that all resumes and cover letters are built from, so an agent knows to invoke it before document generation. It does not name alternatives or provide when-not conditions, but for a store-vs-get sibling relationship the context is clear enough.

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