boss_agent_train

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait: actions meeting the threshold are rehearsed in dry-run by default, which signals a non-destructive default. It omits whether any state is persisted, whether a training run can be undone, and what the caller should expect back.

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?

It is a single compact line with the core mode stated first and availability bracketed at the end, so there is no wasted wording. The terseness, however, comes at the cost of the specifics an agent needs, so compactness here reads as under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

The tool is simple on paper (zero required params, no output schema, no nested objects), so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, for an automation/calibration tool sitting among many agent_* siblings with no annotations, an agent cannot determine the outcome or scope of a training run from this text.

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?

Only one optional parameter exists and its schema description ("本轮最多处理多少个会话") is fully documented at 100% coverage. The tool description adds nothing about 'limit', but with a single fully-described optional param the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 frames this as "招聘自动化" in "训练校准模式" that by default dry-runs actions meeting a threshold, which conveys a calibration/training operation. However, it never says what is actually being trained (a model? a rule set?) or how this differs from the similarly named sibling boss_agent_run, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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 bracketed availability line gives environment gating (roles=candidate/recruiter, platforms=zhipin) but that is a precondition, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to pick this over boss_agent_run, boss_agent_review, or boss_agent_pending, and no mention of what happens after training completes.

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