boss_watch_remove

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 states that it deletes a monitor; it does not disclose whether the deletion is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated watch data, or what the return behavior looks like. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a short phrase and the description is appropriately sized. However, the bracketed availability string contains a duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' that is awkward and slightly reduces clarity.

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 one-parameter delete tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is still missing essential behavioral context. It does not warn that deletion is destructive or irreversible, does not describe required authorization, and does not explain the result of the operation.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single 'name' parameter ('监控名称'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies when schema coverage is high.

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 verb and resource: '删除指定监控' (delete the specified monitor). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like boss_watch_add, boss_watch_list, and boss_watch_run by naming the removal action, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 availability metadata (roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhipin; recruiter_platforms=-), which hints at eligibility but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boss_watch_add or boss_watch_list. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present.

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