tailor_resume

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the first call drafts from the posting, later calls rebuild without overwriting edits, the PDF is retained for the browser extension, and the person should review before applying. These are meaningful operational details for a write operation, and they are consistent with readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by temporal behavior, return fields, and prerequisites. Every sentence contributes useful context, and there is no redundant restatement 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 a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields, side-effect behavior, prerequisite dependency, and human-review expectation. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and understand what happens afterward.

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 100%, and the key parameter is already explained in detail, including accepted formats and ambiguity behavior. The description reinforces that the target is one job but adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: tailor a resume to one job, using resume-kit, and persist the resulting PDF as that job's resume. It also distinguishes the drafting behavior of the first call from later rebuilds, so the agent understands the tool's role without opening the schema.

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 clearly explains the first-call vs later-call behavior and states the prerequisite that resume-kit is needed. However, it does not name related alternatives such as get_application_package or save_application_package, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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