boss_watch_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It states the tool 'saves' a condition but reveals nothing about mutation semantics: what happens on duplicate names, whether an existing watch is overwritten, permissions required, or rate limits. Only a garbled availability string ('可用性: 可用性:') is offered as extra behavioral context.

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 body is a single compact clause, which is appropriately sized and front-loaded. However, the bracketed metadata contains a duplicated, malformed label ('可用性: 可用性:'), which is noise that should have been cleaned up, and the description is so terse it omits useful content rather than being tight.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a terse description. An agent still lacks the information needed to call it correctly: what constitutes a valid/unique watch name, whether re-adding overwrites, and what the result is. The availability line is the only supplementary context.

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 all four parameters (name, query, city, salary) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, range, or constraint details for any of them beyond the platform/role availability note. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb+resource combination: saving ('保存') search conditions ('搜索条件') for incremental monitoring ('增量监控'). An agent can understand the core action. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like boss_watch_list, boss_watch_run, or boss_watch_remove, which would require explicit contrast for a 5.

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 clause (roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhipin; recruiter_platforms=-) implies eligibility conditions, giving some usage context. But there is no guidance on when to add a watch versus list/run/remove one, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing an active session or existing query. Usage is only implied, not stated.

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