boss_watch_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions availability (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhilian/zhipin) and the saving action. It does not disclose side effects such as whether an existing watch with the same name is overwritten, whether duplicates are allowed, or what happens after the conditions are saved.

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 compact and front-loads the core action in a single sentence. The availability note is useful, but it contains a duplicated '可用性:' label, which is a minor formatting flaw. Overall it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 tool with four parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description gives the basic action and an availability constraint. However, it does not explain the behavioral effect or the relationship with sibling watch tools, so an agent could still be uncertain about side effects and when to choose this tool.

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 the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The property descriptions are adequate: name and query are required, city and salary are optional. The description itself does not add extra meaning about how query, city, or salary should be formatted.

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 action (保存增量监控的搜索条件) and a clear resource: the search conditions for incremental monitoring. It is not a tautology and gives a fair idea of what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like boss_watch_list, boss_watch_run, or boss_watch_remove, and the term '增量监控' may be unclear to a new agent.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boss_watch_list, boss_watch_run, or boss_watch_remove. It does not explain whether this creates a new watch, updates an existing one, or how it relates to other watch operations. The availability line is about platform/role constraints, not usage context.

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