boss_exchange

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the action is a 'request' to exchange contact info, but does not explain side effects, whether the other party is notified, whether this action can be undone, or what the response looks like after a successful request.

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 description is a single concise sentence followed by useful availability constraints. It is front-loaded with the action and target. The repeated '可用性:' typo is a minor structural blemish but does not materially impair clarity.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential invocation context: what the tool does, who can use it, and which platforms are supported. It does not describe return behavior, but the lack of an output schema and the tool's low complexity make this a minor gap.

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 the single parameter security_id is already described as the contact's security_id. The tool description adds context about what the exchange covers (phone or WeChat) but does not add any additional meaning to the parameter itself, so the baseline 3 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 clearly states a specific action ('请求交换联系方式') and the target resource (phone/WeChat contact exchange), with the security_id parameter identifying the contact. It is distinct from the broader sibling set, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named boss_hr_exchange.

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 metadata embedded in the description gives clear context: this tool is for candidate roles on zhilian and zhipin platforms, and explicitly not for recruiters (recruiter_platforms=-). This provides concrete when-to-use constraints, though it stops short of naming or contrasting an alternative sibling.

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