boss_watch_remove

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says only 'delete' — it does not state whether removal is permanent, whether confirmation is required, or what happens when the given name matches no watch. The role/platform gating is the sole behavioral fact conveyed.

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?

One front-loaded clause with the action first, followed by a compact bracketed constraint block; nothing is redundant. It is arguably terse to a fault, but no sentence is wasted.

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 no-annotation destructive tool with no output schema, the definition should at minimum say whether deletion is irreversible and how failures are reported. Neither is present, leaving an agent unable to judge the risk of invoking it.

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?

There is a single required parameter whose schema description ('监控名称') already covers 100% of the surface, so baseline 3 applies. The phrase '指定监控' (the specified watch) reinforces that the name identifies an existing watch but adds no format, matching, or case-sensitivity detail.

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 pairs a specific verb ('删除' / delete) with a specific resource ('指定监控' / the specified watch item), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as boss_watch_add, boss_watch_list, or boss_watch_run, but the verb alone makes the distinction clear enough.

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 states a real precondition (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin, recruiter_platforms=-), which tells the agent whether the tool is callable at all. However, it gives no guidance on the workflow context — e.g., that a watch must first be created via boss_watch_add or listed via boss_watch_list to obtain a valid name.

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