yupao_prepare_match

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds genuine context beyond annotations: that it does not call an external model and that it emits citation requirements. It still omits where materials are stored, side effects, and what the generated output contains.

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 front-loaded sentence that opens with the primary action and packs the non-model-call caveat and citation-requirements detail without filler. Efficient and appropriately sized.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and 3 parameters. The description leaves profile_name undocumented and never explains the generated materials/citation structure or the persisted side effects, so it is not complete enough for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 the description must carry parameter meaning. It loosely maps '完整 JD' to job_biz_id and '简历材料' to resume_text, but gives no format or constraints, and profile_name (with default 'default') is never mentioned at all.

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 specific verbs (保存/generate) and a specific resource (full JD plus user-provided resume materials), and adds that it produces materials and citation requirements for the host AI. This clearly distinguishes it from record_match (which would persist results), though it does not name siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: it is a preparation step that readies material for the host AI to analyze ('供当前宿主 AI 分析'), with '不另调模型' clarifying that it does not invoke a model. However, it never states when to use this versus alternatives like record_match or prepare_application, nor any exclusions.

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