Update local tags and notes for candidate jobs in your BOSS Zhipin shortlist, so you can track fit, status, and follow-up details in one place.
更新本地候选池职位的标签和备注 [可用性: 可用性: roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhipin; recruiter_platforms=-]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | 替换本地备注 | |
| job_id | Yes | 加密职位 ID | |
| add_tags | No | 要添加的本地标签 | |
| remove_tags | No | 要移除的本地标签 | |
| security_id | Yes | 职位安全 ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.19.1v1.18.0v1.17.0v1.16.0v1.14.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says it updates local tags/notes but does not disclose reversibility, whether it overwrites existing tags, permission requirements, or how add_tags and remove_tags interact with existing data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 core sentence is compact and front-loaded, but the availability suffix is duplicated ('可用性: 可用性:') and reads as accidental boilerplate, slightly harming structure and clarity.
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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves much unsaid: no mention of overwriting behavior for note, no clarification of add_tags versus remove_tags, and no distinction from peers. It is barely adequate for correct invocation.
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 every parameter is documented in the schema including the note replacement semantics and tag addition/removal meanings. The description adds no parameter detail beyond restating that tags and notes are updated, which meets the baseline when the schema does the work.
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 it updates tags and notes on shortlisted jobs in the local pool, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it gives no differentiation from siblings such as boss_shortlist_add or boss_shortlist_remove, and the appended availability string is noise rather than clarification.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus boss_shortlist_add, boss_shortlist_remove, or boss_shortlist_list. The availability tag hints at scope (candidate role, zhipin platform) but does not tell the agent when this annotate operation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.