boss_preset_remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a non-obvious availability constraint (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin, recruiter_platforms=-), which is genuine added context. However, for a deletion operation it says nothing about irreversibility, whether confirmation is required, or what happens when the named preset does not exist.

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 front-loaded sentence plus a bracketed constraint block; nothing is padded. Minor redundancy in the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' label slightly hurts polish but not comprehension.

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 one-parameter deletion tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the action and platform eligibility but omits the destructive-behavior details an agent would need to call it safely (irreversibility, error on missing preset). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% for the single 'name' parameter (预设名称), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no extra semantics such as name format, case sensitivity, or whether identifiers rather than display names are accepted. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource pair (删除指定搜索预设 = delete the specified search preset), which is unambiguous and inherently distinguishable from sibling preset tools (boss_preset_add, boss_preset_list). It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating in the text.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as boss_preset_list (to inspect presets before deleting). The bracketed availability block gives an eligibility constraint, but that is environment gating rather than usage selection guidance.

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