boss_hr_reply

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for what is an outbound, effectively irreversible action (a message delivered to a real candidate). It says nothing about delivery semantics, failure modes, whether prior threads must exist, or whether the message is sent immediately. Only the role/platform gate is disclosed.

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 compact line with the action front-loaded and the availability constraint bracketed at the end. Nothing is wasted, though the bracketed metadata is dense and partially machine-syntax rather than prose.

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?

The schema documents both required parameters and the description supplies the role/platform gate the schema omits, which is the key missing context for a two-parameter reply tool with no output schema. It still lacks any note on outcome or how it differs from the other chat/reply siblings.

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%: both message and friend_id are documented in the schema itself, so the description adds no parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate here since the schema does the work.

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?

"招聘者模式：回复候选人消息" gives a specific verb (reply) and resource (candidate messages) plus the operating mode (recruiter). It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as boss_hr_chat, boss_hr_chatmsg, or boss_ai_reply, 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; recruiter_platforms=zhipin-recruiter) implies the context in which this tool is valid, which is useful gating information. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for reading a conversation versus replying into it, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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