yupao_prepare_application

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

Annotations supply the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description usefully clarifies that no communication or application is actually sent. But readOnlyHint=false implies some server-side state change during 'preparation', and the description's '预览' framing never reconciles that tension or says what, if anything, gets persisted.

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 dense sentence with the scope and the non-mutating guarantee front-loaded; no filler. It is arguably too short for the amount of undocumented behavior it must carry.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description carries the full burden. It does say what the preview returns (publisher, resume, permissions) and what it does not do, but omits identifier sourcing and permission-failure behavior, leaving real gaps for a two-param tool.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. It only alludes to '指定附件' (the resume_file_id) and says nothing about job_biz_id — its format, source, or whether it comes from yupao_search_jobs results — nor about the empty-string default on resume_file_id.

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?

A clear verb (预览/prepare-preview) plus a specific resource (单条指定附件投递 — a single application with a specified attachment resume), and it lists what the preview surfaces (publisher, resume, permissions). It is distinguishable from the mutation siblings like yupao_execute_action, though the 'prepare' prefix family (prepare_match, prepare_message) is not explicitly contrasted.

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?

'准备阶段不发起沟通或投递' signals this is a dry-run/preflight step, which implies 'use before committing'. However, it never names the follow-up tool (e.g. yupao_execute_action) or states when a preview is unnecessary, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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