Write a resume .docx

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 clearly indicates this is a write operation, and it goes beyond a basic statement by disclosing return values and content-modifying behavior: it returns the output path, estimated page count, dropped bullets, and matched/missing keywords. This gives an agent visibility into side effects and potential content loss.

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,front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It covers the action, output format, and key return details efficiently, making it easy to parse.

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 description is adequate for a 7-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema: it states the action, output format, and return information. It could additionally mention overwrite behavior or profile prerequisites, but the input schema covers most of those details, and the return list is notably complete.

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 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some contextual meaning by mentioning dropped bullets and keyword matching, which relates to max_pages and keywords, but it does not substantially explain parameter formats or relationships beyond what the schema already covers.

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') and resource ('stored profile to a Word .docx'), making the tool's core function immediately clear. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like resume_to_markdown, resume_to_html, and resume_read by explicitly naming the output format and operation.

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 phrase 'Call this tool to write the stored profile to a Word .docx' gives a clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names (resume_to_markdown, resume_to_html) make the alternative cases inferrable.

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