liepin_apply_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the critical trait: the application cannot be easily withdrawn. It also pins the confirmation string exactly. It does not cover auth prerequisites, duplicate-application behavior, or what happens on failure, which is a real gap for an irreversible mutation.

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 the irreversibility warning and parameter constraints. Both paragraphs earn their place, with no filler.

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 three-param irreversible write tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to call it safely. Missing are auth/login requirements and error or duplicate-handling behavior, which matter given the stated irreversibility.

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%, but the description compensates well: job_id and job_kind are constrained to fresh search results, job_kind must not be guessed, and confirmation must match a literal string. It stops short of enumerating valid job_kind values, which would fully close the gap.

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 ('向猎聘投递指定职位') with the scope made explicit. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like liepin_search_jobs and liepin_get_resume by the write action alone, though the description does not name an alternative tool.

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?

Explicit preconditions are given: first display the job details and get the user's explicit confirmation, and use job_id/job_kind only from this session's Liepin search results. It also states an explicit negative constraint — job_kind must not be guessed — so there is little left to infer.

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