boss_preset_add

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the saving action and an availability constraint, with no mention of whether existing presets are overwritten, whether any permissions are required, or what side effects occur. The duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' also makes the availability note somewhat garbled.

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 quite short, but it contains a duplicated '可用性:' and the availability text feels tacked on rather than structured. It is not overly verbose, yet it also isn't polished or well-organized. The core phrase is minimal but clear.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, this mutation tool needs more context to be reliably invoked. The description does not explain what happens when a preset name already exists, how the optional fields combine, or how users can later retrieve the saved preset. The availability constraint is useful but not sufficient for complete guidance.

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 each parameter has a clear Chinese description (e.g., name='预设名称', query='搜索关键词', city='城市（可选）'). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema already covers the meaning well, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action and object: '保存搜索预设' (save search preset). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like boss_preset_list and boss_preset_remove, which are clearly different operations. However, it adds little beyond the tool's name, so it doesn't fully elaborate the tool's scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like boss_watch_add or boss_shortlist_add. The availability note mentions roles and platforms, but it doesn't explain use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use this tool. This leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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