Read an existing resume .docx

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

The description is behaviorally rich (best-effort heading parse, sections found + unplaced remainder, no save by default). However, it discloses that the tool writes the profile when save=true, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the stated behavior contradicts the annotation. Flagged as an annotation contradiction.

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?

Three tight sentences with the imperative action front-loaded and the save caveat placed immediately after. Minor boilerplate in 'Call this tool to' keeps it out of the top band.

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?

With no output schema, the description does sketch the return shape ('the sections found and anything unplaced') and covers the format restriction and save semantics. The undocumented 'variant' parameter is the only real gap.

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 coverage is 67%: 'path' and 'save' are already documented in the schema, and the description mostly restates them (file-type refusals, save-off default). The 'variant' parameter has no description anywhere, which the description also fails to cover. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('read an existing .docx resume') plus the transformation target ('into the profile shape'), which separates it from resume_create and doc_read. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear call condition and a negative constraint: '.doc and .rtf are refused', and instructs the agent to review the result before committing. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. doc_read, resume_to_markdown) for those cases, so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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