boss_exchange

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says this is a 'request' exchange but doesn't disclose whether it triggers a notification to the other party, requires mutual consent, has rate limits, or what happens on rejection — all material for a social/mutating action.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in a single short clause, with the constraint relegated to a bracketed tag — good structure. Minor deductions for the stuttering, duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' label that wastes a few characters.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and who can use it, which is minimally sufficient. It omits expected outcome (does the exchange complete immediately or require the contact's approval?) and failure behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for an interaction tool.

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 parameter (security_id) with 100% schema description coverage ('联系人的 uid（推荐）或 security_id'), so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond mentioning the exchange channel, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 (request to exchange contact info: phone or WeChat), which is clear and distinguishable from the recruiter-side sibling boss_hr_exchange. The trailing availability tag further scopes it to candidate/zhipin, though the double '可用性:' duplication slightly muddies the phrasing.

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 availability constraint (roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhipin; recruiter_platforms=-) implicitly tells the agent this tool is only for candidate sessions, which is useful routing context. However, it never explicitly names alternatives like boss_hr_exchange or states when not to use it, leaving the comparison to inference.

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