boss_config

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that 'set' and 'reset' mutate configuration, whether 'reset' restores defaults or deletes the key, whether changes are reversible, or what permissions are required beyond role eligibility. Only the availability envelope is covered.

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 short sentence plus a bracketed constraint block, front-loaded with the purpose and free of filler. The densest useful information (actions and their effects) is absent rather than the text being bloated, so conciseness itself is good.

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?

This is a low-parameter but mutation-capable tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain what 'reset' does, what a 'set' returns, and whether keys are namespaced. None of that is present, leaving an agent unable to predict the consequences of the destructive actions.

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% — every parameter including the action enum has its own Chinese description — so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, such as whether 'key' must exist before 'get' or what 'reset' falls back to.

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 specific verb pair and resource ('查看和修改配置项' = view and modify configuration items), which tells an agent what domain the tool covers. It does not distinguish this tool from adjacent configuration-like siblings such as boss_preset_list or boss_watch_list, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 block gives concrete eligibility constraints (roles=candidate/recruiter; platform=zhipin/zhipin-recruiter), which is useful routing information. However, it never says when to pick this tool over the preset/watch siblings, and it does not explain which action (list/get/set/reset) is appropriate in which situation.

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