boss_shortlist_annotate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose that the operation is '本地' (local-only, not affecting the platform), which a caller couldn't infer from the name alone, but it omits what happens if the job isn't in the shortlist, whether add_tags merges or overwrites, and any error or permission behavior.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence naming the action and resource, followed by a compact availability tag. Nothing is wasted, though the availability bracket is dense and could be easier 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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the fully documented input schema and the explicit availability constraint cover much of the need. However, whether the tool fails or no-ops when the job isn't already shortlisted, and what the caller gets back, is left unexplained.

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 (note, add_tags, remove_tags, job_id, security_id) is already documented in the schema, including the critical fact that note replaces rather than appends. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, 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 states a specific verb ('更新') and a specific resource ('本地候选池职位的标签和备注'), so the scope is clear without opening the schema. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like boss_shortlist_add or boss_shortlist_remove, although the word '标签和备注' in effect points to the annotation action rather than to adding or removing a shortlist entry.

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 line tells the caller which role and platform can use this tool (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin), which is real usage guidance. However, the description never says when to choose this tool over boss_shortlist_add, boss_shortlist_remove, or boss_shortlist_list, nor does it state the precondition that the job must already be in the local pool.

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