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. It discloses role/platform availability, but for a write operation it says nothing about persistence, duplicate-name handling, overwriting an existing preset, or any confirmation/return behavior. The doubled and malformed '可用性: 可用性:' prefix further weakens the signal.

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?

It is appropriately short and front-loads the purpose, but the redundant '可用性: 可用性:' duplication is sloppy and wastes the little space available. Otherwise there is no filler.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits what a successful save produces, how the preset is later retrieved, and any duplicate/overwrite semantics. Only the availability constraint is covered.

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%, with all seven fields (name, query, city, salary, welfare, education, experience) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (保存搜索预设 = save a search preset), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as boss_preset_list or boss_preset_remove, though the name and the 'add' semantics make the distinction inferable.

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 block states a real precondition (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin), which is useful gating context an agent can act on. However, it gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never points to the sibling preset tools as alternatives.

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