boss_exchange

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. Using '请求' (request) rather than a get-style verb conveys that this initiates an exchange request rather than revealing contact data immediately, which is meaningful. It still omits side effects, whether the counterparty must approve, quota or rate limits, and what the call returns.

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?

One sentence plus a compact constraint tag, with the action front-loaded and zero redundant prose. The bracketed availability notation is terse but functional. Its machine-oriented style slightly reduces readability for an agent scanning natural language.

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 single-parameter request tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the action and platform gating but not the outcome. An agent cannot tell whether the call returns contact details, queues a request pending approval, or returns only a status. The missing output schema should have been compensated for and was not.

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 there is only one parameter (security_id), whose schema text already explains that it can be the contact's uid or security_id. The description adds no constraint or format guidance beyond that, so the 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 gives a specific verb-and-resource pair: '请求交换联系方式（手机号或微信）' (request exchange of phone number or WeChat). This is clearly a distinct action from resume viewing or greeting. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the availability line marks it as candidate-only, which implicitly separates it from the recruiter-side 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 bracketed availability block specifies the usable context (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin, recruiter_platforms=-), which is real when-to-use guidance. However, it never says when NOT to use this or which alternative to pick—for example, the recruiter counterpart boss_hr_exchange—leaving the agent to infer routing from the fact that recruiters are excluded.

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