boss_hr_jobs

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, yet it reveals almost no behavior beyond the availability line. It does not state that online/offline are state-changing mutations, whether taking a job offline is reversible, what confirmation or error behavior to expect, or whether page is ignored for those actions.

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, front-loaded sentence covers the operation and the availability constraint in a bracketed suffix. There is no redundant wording and the structure makes the two parts easy to scan.

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?

This is a no-annotation mutation tool with no output schema, so the description needed to explain the effects of online/offline and the shape of results. It only covers what the tool is and who can call it, leaving the behavioral consequences of the write actions entirely unspecified.

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%, so the schema already documents page, action and job_id, including that job_id is required for online/offline. The description adds nothing about parameters that the schema does not already say, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 resource (job management list, 职位管理列表) and specific actions (list, online, offline, 上线/下线), which is enough for an agent to know what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling boss_hr_jobs_detail, which covers adjacent territory, so it stops short of a 5.

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 (roles=recruiter, candidate_platforms=-, recruiter_platforms=zhipin-recruiter) tells the agent when the tool is applicable, which is genuinely useful gating context. However, it never says when to pick this tool over boss_hr_jobs_detail or when not to use it, so the guidance remains implicit.

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