boss_mark

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden: it never states that this is a mutating operation with side effects, whether removal is idempotent, what happens when the tag does not currently exist, or whether the change is reversible. The add/remove distinction it does convey is already encoded in the `remove` boolean parameter, so it adds little behavioral context of its own.

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 purpose sentence with an appended bracketed constraint block; there is no redundant or filler wording, and the core action is front-loaded. The parenthetical tag list is slightly bulky but earns its place as the only enumeration of valid tag values.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what and who but not the effect: no statement about return values, error conditions, or whether a tag list is returned after mutation. It is adequate to call the tool correctly in the happy path but leaves the agent to infer mutation semantics.

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 parameter baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by naming actual tag values (新招呼, 沟通中, 已约面, 不合适, 收藏), whereas the schema only says "标签名称" without any enumeration. It still does not explain the security_id vs uid resolution hint or the default-false semantics of `remove`, so it is not a full 5.

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 verb pair and resource: add or remove a tag on a contact (给联系人添加或移除标签). It also enumerates concrete tag categories (新招呼/沟通中/已约面/不合适/收藏等), so the agent knows exactly what object is being mutated. It does not explicitly contrast itself with tag-adjacent siblings such as boss_shortlist_annotate or boss_favorites_list, which keeps it from 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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose statement; there is no explicit "use this when / use X instead" routing against the many sibling tools. The bracketed availability clause (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin, recruiter_platforms=-) is genuine scoping guidance that tells the agent who can call it and on which platform, which is more than nothing but is not an alternative-selection rule.

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