Add a BOSS Zhipin job to a local candidate shortlist with optional tags and notes for later review and tracking.
将职位加入本地候选池，可附加本地标签和备注 [可用性: roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhipin; recruiter_platforms=-]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lid | No | 与 security_id 同一列表项的访问上下文（可选；不推断有效期） | |
| 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.
v3.0.1Input schema / properties / lidAdded value: +{
+ "default": "",
+ "description": "与 security_id 同一列表项的访问上下文（可选；不推断有效期）",
+ "type": "string"
+}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 supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions local persistence and role/platform availability, but omits duplicate/idempotency behavior, whether adding an existing job overwrites tags or notes, and what happens on success or failure.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with a compact availability bracket and no filler. The bracket is dense but useful; overall wording is efficient and easy to parse.
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 unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and applicability constraints. It remains incomplete regarding duplicate handling, side effects, and return behavior, though the fully described input schema mitigates the parameter gap.
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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description restates that tags and notes can be attached, but adds no additional meaning, format, or constraints beyond what the input schema provides.
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 names a specific verb (加入/add) and resource (本地候选池/local candidate pool), and notes that local tags and notes can be attached. It is distinguishable from siblings like boss_shortlist_remove, boss_shortlist_list, and boss_shortlist_annotate by the add action, though it does not explicitly name 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 block gives concrete applicability constraints (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin, recruiter_platforms=-), which tells an agent when the tool is usable. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over boss_shortlist_annotate or boss_shortlist_list, so usage guidance is implied rather than fully stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.