Request a candidate's phone number or WeChat ID by providing the conversation friend_id, enabling recruiters to exchange contact details directly in BOSS Zhipin.
招聘者模式：请求交换候选人手机号或微信 [可用性: 可用性: roles=recruiter; candidate_platforms=-; recruiter_platforms=zhipin-recruiter]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | 交换类型 | phone |
| friend_id | Yes | 候选人会话 friend_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.19.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says '请求交换' which implies a request rather than a guaranteed immediate exchange, but it does not disclose side effects, whether candidate consent is needed, what happens after the request, or how results are returned. Availability metadata is present but does not substitute for behavioral transparency.
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 short and front-loads the core action, but it contains a duplicated '可用性:' typo and embeds availability metadata in brackets. This is concise overall, but the structural defect and metadata clutter prevent a higher score.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not explain the request's lifecycle, return value, or failure modes. It also does not distinguish this tool from the similarly named boss_exchange. The schema covers parameters, but the broader context an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly is incomplete.
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 both parameters are already described in the schema: type is '交换类型' and friend_id is '候选人会话 friend_id'. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond echoing the phone/WeChat choice already enumerated in the schema.
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 the action ('请求交换' / request exchange) and the resource ('候选人手机号或微信' / candidate phone or WeChat), and scopes it to recruiter mode. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative such as boss_exchange, so differentiation relies partly on the tool name and the mode label.
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 description provides availability constraints ('roles=recruiter', 'recruiter_platforms=zhipin-recruiter') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like boss_exchange. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, so an agent must infer the conditions from the name and mode label.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.