boss_apply

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: the operation is idempotent and will not create duplicate applications. It omits other load-bearing behavior for a mutation tool — whether a quota or daily limit applies, what a successful result looks like, and whether the action is reversible.

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 front-loaded sentence: the action comes first, then the idempotency guarantee, then the availability constraint. It is slightly blemished by the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' label, but nothing is padded.

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-required-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials — what it does, that it is idempotent, and who can call it. It stops short of describing the observable outcome or failure modes, which an agent would want before firing an irreversible-looking side effect.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (job_id as encrypt_job_id, security_id) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance for these IDs, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate — the schema does all the work.

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 action pair — initiate an application ('投递') or start immediate communication ('立即沟通') — on the boss/job resource, which an agent can distinguish from read-only siblings like boss_detail or boss_status. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby greet-family tools (boss_greet, boss_batch_greet, boss_hr_greet), so the boundary is inferable rather than stated.

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?

It supplies a real usage gate — roles=candidate and candidate_platforms=zhipin — which tells the agent who may call it. It never says when to pick this over boss_greet or boss_batch_greet, nor does it state exclusion conditions, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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