boss_shortlist_annotate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool updates tags and remarks, without explaining whether tag changes are additive/destructive, whether the note is fully replaced, or what side effects or permissions are involved. This is a significant gap for a mutation-oriented tool.

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 description is a single concise sentence with minimal wasted words. However, the trailing availability block contains a duplicated '可用性:' marker and mixes metadata into the natural-language description, which slightly hurts clarity and structure.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, the description is too sparse to be fully self-sufficient. It explains what is updated but omits behavioral consequences, expected result, and operational context beyond the brief availability note, leaving an agent to infer important details.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's generic mention of 'tags and remarks' maps to the add_tags/remove_tags/note parameters but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the 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 ('update'), a specific resource ('local candidate pool positions'), and the exact attributes changed ('tags and remarks'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like boss_shortlist_add, boss_shortlist_remove, and boss_shortlist_list, which handle different operations on the same resource.

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 phrase 'update local candidate pool positions' implies the tool is for annotating existing shortlist entries, and the availability block gives some contextual constraints. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over related tools like boss_shortlist_add/remove, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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