request_outreach

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels at disclosing behavioral traits. It explains the multi-step workflow (how invitations are sent and processed), reveals important limitations (daily quotas, 90-day cooldown, unsubscribe option), and provides practical guidance about response rates. This goes well beyond basic functionality.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections (工作原理, 限制, 提示) that make information easy to parse. Every sentence adds value - no wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important details.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides exceptional completeness. It covers the entire workflow, limitations, practical tips, and expected outcomes. The agent understands not just what the tool does but how it behaves in practice, which is crucial for a tool that initiates external communications.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add significant semantic context beyond what the schema provides about session_id, candidate_ref, job_token, and message parameters. The baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('发送职位邀请' - send job invitation) and target resource ('数据库候选人' - database candidates), distinguishing it from siblings like search_candidates or view_candidate. It explicitly identifies the candidate type as non-ClawHire WonderCV users, providing precise scope.

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?

The description provides clear context about when to use this tool (sending invitations to database candidates) and includes practical tips ('建议配合职位使用' - recommend using with specific jobs). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though the context implies it's for outreach rather than viewing/searching.

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