boss_shortlist_remove

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether removal is reversible, permission requirements, or side effects. The agent gains no insight beyond the basic removal action.

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 concise, but the availability tag contains a redundant repetition ('可用性: 可用性:') which slightly reduces clarity. It could be more polished, but it is still brief and to the point.

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 removal tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states its function. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what happens upon removal (e.g., confirmation, error cases) or prerequisites, but it is minimally sufficient.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (security_id and job_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 clearly states the action and resource: '从候选池移除职位' (remove position from candidate pool). It effectively communicates the tool's purpose, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like boss_shortlist_add or boss_shortlist_list.

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 description includes availability context ('roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhilian, zhipin'), which helps agents understand when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives.

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