yupao_annotate_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description does not disclose the critical mutation semantics: whether 'tags' and 'note' (both required) replace or merge existing values, whether omitted 'status' resets to the default 'candidate', or what the call returns. For an overwrite-style annotation tool this gap is significant.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and the affected fields front-loaded and no filler. Brevity is not wasteful, though it tips toward under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema, 0% parameter description coverage, and no annotation detail beyond generic hints. The description supplies the status enum but omits replace-vs-merge behavior, job identifier semantics, and any result expectation, leaving an agent insufficiently equipped to call it safely.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries real weight. It usefully enumerates the allowed status values (candidate/priority/excluded/archived), which the schema does not (no enum, only a default of 'candidate'). It says nothing about 'job_biz_id' or the expected shape/format of the tags array and note string, so compensation is only partial.

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 ('修改' / modify) and resource ('本机岗位' local job annotations) with the concrete field set (tags, note, status). An agent can tell this is an annotation/status-writing tool rather than a search or save tool, though it does not name a sibling such as yupao_save_job to delineate the boundary.

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?

No guidance on when this tool should be used instead of yupao_save_job, yupao_remove_saved_job, or the preset tools, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether the job must first be found via yupao_search_jobs or yupao_get_job_detail). Usage is only inferable from the field list.

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