boss_apply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: the action is idempotent and will not re-submit a duplicate application. It says nothing about side effects (does it also open a chat?), error conditions, or whether a message is sent to the recruiter.

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 action front-loaded, followed by a clearly delimited availability tag. No filler, though the bracket syntax is machine-ish rather than explanatory.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the action is, its idempotency, and its eligibility constraints. It is still incomplete about the outcome of the call and the relationship to the greeting tools, which matters given how many siblings overlap.

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% and both parameters (job_id as encrypt_job_id, security_id) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no further meaning about how the two IDs relate or where they come from, so 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?

The description states a concrete action pair, "发起投递或立即沟通" (apply to a job or start an immediate conversation), which tells an agent exactly what operation this is. The only weakness is that "立即沟通" overlaps conceptually with the sibling boss_greet, and the description never disambiguates the two.

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 tag (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin, recruiter_platforms=-) gives a real precondition for when the tool can be used at all. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over boss_greet or boss_batch_greet, so the agent is left to infer the boundary.

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