job104_save_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that this is a direct write operation ('會直接執行寫入操作') and states the authentication prerequisite, which are the key behavioral traits for a save/mutation tool. It does not describe response format or what happens on duplicate saves, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Two tightly scoped sentences: the purpose and target are front-loaded, followed immediately by the write/auth caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple 1-parameter write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, mutation nature, and login requirement adequately. Only minor gaps (duplicate handling, return behavior) remain.

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%, with the single jobInput parameter already documented with examples ('796uv' or a URL). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: adds a specified job code (職缺代碼) to 'My Favorites' (我的收藏) in the 104 account. The resource distinction from the sibling job104_save_company (jobs vs companies) is self-evident, though siblings are not named 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?

Provides a real prerequisite ('需先確認已登入' – must confirm you're logged in first), which implies checking session before calling. However it does not name job104_check_session as the sibling to use, nor state when to use this versus other save operations.

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