I have come around to the position that most advice to job candidates is potentially useless, not only because there are so few t-t jobs in most fields that "advice" implies more agency than most candidates have, but also because even the most general advice will inevitably hurt some candidates at some institutions. Nevertheless.
One of the golden rules of application letters and CVs is: do not confuse, or try to confuse, the committee. (The rest is commentary.)
For example, a basic yet commonly-committed no-no in CV construction: lumping all sorts of miscellaneous things under "publications." Professor Doe picks up a CV, sees a long list of titles under the "publications" heading, and is duly impressed...until she looks more closely and realizes that "publications" includes conference papers, articles in circulation, articles in progress, and several entries on TVTropes. There are, however, no actual peer-reviewed publications in sight. At this point, Professor Doe becomes mildly irritated and aims the CV in the direction of a figurative recycling bin. There are many reasons why a candidate might try to lump his or her work instead of split it, but the end result tends to be the same.
To reiterate: do not confuse, or try to confuse, the committee.