Add or remove tags like New Greeting, In Communication, Interview Scheduled, Not Suitable, or Favorite on BOSS Zhipin contacts to track and update candidate pipeline status.
给联系人添加或移除标签（新招呼/沟通中/已约面/不合适/收藏等） [可用性: 可用性: roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhilian, zhipin; recruiter_platforms=-]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes | 标签名称 | |
| remove | No | 是否移除标签 | |
| security_id | Yes | 联系人的 security_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.19.1v1.12.0v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the mutation (add/remove tag) but does not describe side effects, idempotency, overwrite behavior, permissions, or what happens when the remove flag is absent. This is thin for a write operation.
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 core sentence is concise and front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by useful tag examples. The availability block adds context but includes a duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' that makes it slightly noisy.
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 3-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the basic operation and availability. However, it lacks explicit usage-selection guidance and deeper behavioral detail, so an agent may still need to infer how to route to it among many sibling contact tools.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds example tag values but no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides for tag, remove, and security_id.
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 states a specific action ('添加或移除标签') on a specific resource ('联系人') and gives concrete tag examples. It is clear, but it does not name or explicitly differentiate related sibling tools such as boss_shortlist_add or boss_favorites_list.
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 includes availability context (candidate roles on zhilian and zhipin, not recruiters), which helps an agent infer when the tool applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use cases beyond the availability constraint, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.