删除归档岗位

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, and it discloses nothing about irreversibility, whether the deletion cascades to linked applications or history, or what the response confirms. For a destructive mutation tool this is a significant disclosure gap; it is at least not misleading.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the key constraint (deletion keyed by id) with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined writing.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent without the safety context needed to call it correctly. It does not say the operation is permanent or what happens to dependent records.

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 0% and the parameter is documented only as a bare string with no description. The description adds only that the id identifies the archived position, without noting where the id comes from (e.g., job_archive_list) or its format.

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 (删除/delete) and resource (归档岗位/archived job), and the id argument makes the targeting explicit. It is distinguishable from job_archive_add and job_archive_list by name and verb, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 versus alternatives such as job_archive_to_application, nor any prerequisite or caution about deleting archived positions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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