Add a BOSS Zhipin job to a local candidate pool with optional tags and notes, making it easier to track promising roles.
将职位加入本地候选池，可附加本地标签和备注 [可用性: 可用性: roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhipin; recruiter_platforms=-]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | 本地备注 | |
| tags | No | 本地标签，逗号分隔 | |
| job_id | Yes | 加密职位 ID | |
| security_id | Yes | 职位安全 ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.19.1v1.18.0v1.17.0v1.16.0v1.14.0Input schema / properties / noteAdded value: +{
+ "description": "本地备注",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / tagsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "本地标签，逗号分隔",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses '本地' (local storage) and that tags/notes are optional, but says nothing about duplicate handling, whether an existing shortlist entry is overwritten, required permissions, or the effect on the candidate pool.
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 with no padding. It is slightly marred by the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' in the availability bracket, but otherwise reads cleanly.
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 simple add-to-local-list mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but leaves behavioral gaps (duplicates, reversibility, auth) unaddressed, which matters since no annotations fill that void.
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 all four parameters (security_id, job_id, tags, note) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the optional tags/note fields and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: '将职位加入本地候选池' (add a job to the local candidate pool), with the optional tags/note capability noted. This differentiates it from siblings like boss_shortlist_remove and boss_shortlist_annotate, though it never names those alternatives.
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 availability bracket (roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhipin) implies a usage precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against alternatives such as boss_shortlist_annotate or boss_shortlist_list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.