liepin_update_job_expectation

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose that this is a write operation requiring explicit user confirmation after viewing fields. It also constrains the confirmation string and record_id origin, though it does not describe reversibility, permission requirements, or how omitted optional fields affect existing data.

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 short and front-loaded: purpose first, then the mandatory confirmation workflow, then exact constraints and supported fields. Every sentence contributes necessary operational or safety information.

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 tool has 10 parameters, no annotations, and low schema description coverage, so the description should compensate more fully. It covers purpose, confirmation, record_id provenance, and field names, but not enough about field meanings or partial-update behavior; the output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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 0%, so parameter meaning depends entirely on the description. The description lists all supported field names and adds important semantics for confirmation and record_id, but leaves several fields such as dq, salary units, workweek semantics, and allowed workType values unexplained.

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: '更新猎聘的求职期望' (update Liepin job expectation). This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which search jobs, fetch resumes, or apply to jobs.

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 explicitly requires the user to view the updated fields and give clear confirmation before the write operation, and states the exact confirmation string and valid source of record_id. Usage context is strong, though there is no explicit statement of when not to use the tool or an alternative path.

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