boss_hr_exchange

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only says this is a 'request' to exchange. It does not disclose whether the candidate must approve, whether the contact is revealed immediately or only after consent, whether the operation is reversible, or what rate/permission constraints apply.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The bracketed metadata is dense and machine-styled rather than prose, but it is compact and placed after the core action.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation outbound request tool, the definition covers the platform/mode gating but leaves the consent flow and result behavior unexplained. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 type parameter already has an enum with a default, so structured data does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of phone/WeChat loosely maps to the type parameter but adds no format or behavior detail beyond 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 names a specific action and resource: '请求交换候选人手机号或微信' (request exchange of candidate phone/WeChat), scoped to recruiter mode. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling boss_exchange, but the 'recruiter mode' framing gives an agent enough to know which side of the platform it applies to.

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 clause (roles=recruiter, recruiter_platforms=zhipin-recruiter) tells the agent it is recruiter-only, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when to use this versus boss_exchange, boss_hr_request_resume, or boss_hr_chat, and no exclusion conditions are given.

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