boss_preset_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the platform/role restriction. It does not say whether the call persists a new preset, what happens if a preset with the same name already exists (overwrite vs. duplicate vs. error), or what the result looks like. For a write/persist operation with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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?

One short front-loaded sentence plus a compact structured constraint block, with no wasted wording. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification as much as discipline.

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 an eight-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is thin: persistence semantics, duplicate-name handling, and response shape are all left unstated. The availability constraint is the only behavioral information supplied, which is not enough to call it confidently.

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% and all eight parameters — including the enumerated 活跃度 values — are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies; the schema does the work here.

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 pairs the verb 保存 (save) with the resource 搜索预设 (search preset), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like boss_preset_list and boss_preset_remove. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the create-vs-list-vs-remove split is obvious from the wording.

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 note (roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhipin; recruiter_platforms=-) tells the agent when this tool is NOT usable — recruiters are excluded and only Zhipin candidates qualify — which is genuine when-not guidance. However, it never routes the agent to alternatives such as boss_preset_list to check for existing presets before adding one.

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