yupao_save_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that by disclosing dedupe by job_biz_id and preservation of note/tags. It stops short of saying what happens when the job is already saved (overwrite vs merge of existing note/tags), which is the key ambiguity for a repeat call.

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 primary action front-loaded and no filler. The density is high but each clause (full JD, local pool, dedupe key, note/tags) contributes distinct 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?

For a 3-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description should say what a successful call returns (e.g., saved record id or created-vs-existing flag) and confirm whether tags/note replace prior values. Those gaps remain, though the core action and dedupe semantics are covered.

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 carries the burden, and it does name all three parameters in effect: job_biz_id as the dedupe key, plus note and tags as preserved values. It adds no format, length, or defaulting detail (tags nullable, note defaulting to empty), so it partially but not fully compensates for the schema 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?

The description names a concrete verb and resource: it reads the full JD and writes it into the local saved-job pool, with dedupe key and preserved fields called out. That is enough to distinguish it from yupao_list_saved_jobs or yupao_remove_saved_job, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the nearby yupao_annotate_job, which also touches note/tags.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this instead of yupao_get_job_detail (which also fetches the JD) or yupao_annotate_job (which also manages note/tags), and no prerequisites or preconditions are given. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'save'.

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