新增投递记录

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says the tool records an application but discloses nothing about mutation behavior: whether duplicate applications are allowed, what happens on invalid input, what side effects occur, or what is returned. The schema's status default (已投递) is never echoed or explained.

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 sentence with the verb and resource first and the field list in parentheses; zero waste. It is efficient, though borderline under-specified rather than genuinely optimized.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a plausible duplicate sibling, the description is too thin. It omits duplicate/validation behavior, defaults, and any disambiguation from add_application_record, leaving real gaps an agent would need filled.

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 50%, and the description names most fields (company, position, JD, status, channel, salary, notes), which roughly maps to the schema. However, it adds no semantics beyond the property names — no formats, ranges, or optionality — and omits matchScore entirely, so it only marginally compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (记录/record) and resource (一次岗位投递/a job application), plus enumerates the captured fields. The purpose is unambiguous in isolation, but the description never acknowledges the apparent near-duplicate sibling add_application_record, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the text.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no preconditions, and no reference to alternatives such as application_update or the confusingly similar add_application_record. Usage context is only vaguely implied by the verb 'record'.

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