add_profile_fact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: append-only behavior ('never overwrites'), automatic dating/attribution, immediate visibility to other tools, and the consequence that anything written is treated as true in future CV drafts. These are behavioral traits beyond 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core operation, then adds usage boundaries and a safety warning, with no filler. Each sentence contributes to correct tool selection or invocation.

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 covers operation, usage, safety, and cross-tool impact, and an output schema exists. The main gap is the undocumented `source` and `section` parameters, so an agent must guess their semantics.

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 0% and the description does not explicitly explain the `source` or `section` parameters. It gives examples of what the `text` value should contain, but leaves the other two parameters' meaning and format to inference.

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 opens with 'Add a new fact to the candidate profile', a specific verb and resource, and immediately clarifies 'Appends - never overwrites', which distinguishes it from update_profile_section. Examples of content types (certification, metric, project, corrected scope) further ground what 'fact' means.

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?

It gives explicit 'Use this for anything newly learned' and instructs to prefer it over update_profile_section unless a whole document rewrite is intended. It also issues a constraint: only record facts the user has confirmed, which tells the agent when not to use it.

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