boss_mark

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavior. It only states the action (add/remove tags) and gives examples, missing important details like side effects, permissions, or what happens when adding a tag that already exists.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words.

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 simple tagging tool, the description is adequate but lacks details on whether adding a tag overwrites previous tags or is additive. No output schema means the agent gets no info on return values.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions, but the description adds value by providing concrete tag examples (新招呼/沟通中/已约面/不合适/收藏), clarifying what valid tag names might be.

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 tool adds or removes tags for contacts, with specific examples like 'new greeting' and 'in communication'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other HR operations.

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?

While it's the only tagging tool among siblings, the description does not explicitly state when to use it or when to avoid it. Usage is implied but lacks explicit guidance on edge cases or alternatives.

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