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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares this is a write, that it mutates the customer's job configuration, and that changes are immediately live. It does not cover auth/permission requirements or response shape, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the patch-only rule, then the field list, then the required-params and safety note. The field enumeration is dense but earns its place; slightly list-heavy but no filler sentences.

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 2-param mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers required params, mutation semantics, immediacy, and field shapes. Missing return-value or error behavior, but that is a minor gap here.

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 only 50% (slug has no description, patch is loosely typed), but the description compensates: it states both slug and patch are required and fully documents the patch fields, including shapes and enums (layoutStyle split|pip|classic, contextMode inline|webhook, promotionConfig and productSources object structures).

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+resource: partial (patch) modification of the 岗位配置, and enumerates exactly which fields can be changed. It is clearly distinguished from the read counterpart get_staff_config by name and by the word 局部修改, though it never explicitly names the sibling as an alternative.

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 real operational guidance: it is a write operation on the customer's job, changes take effect immediately, and the agent should restate the change to the user before calling when intent is unclear. No explicit when-not or alternative-tool routing, which keeps it below 5.

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