归档岗位转投递记录

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one useful behavioral trait: the source archive is retained (归档保留), implying no deletion of the original. However, it omits mutation-relevant facts such as whether a duplicate application is created, default status/channel behavior, and reversibility.

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 compact sentence with the key action and the retention caveat front-loaded. Efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the other gaps rather than pure economy.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, yet the description is one sentence. An agent lacks enough information about side effects, duplicate handling, and parameter meaning to call it confidently.

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 only 33%. The description says nothing about any of the three parameters: the enum-constrained 'status' has no explanation of defaults, and 'channel' is entirely undocumented in both schema and description. It fails to compensate 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+resource pair: converting an archived job into an application record. This distinguishes it from generic siblings like application_add or add_application_record, which create records without an archived-job source. Clear, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 implies its use case (converting archived jobs) but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and never mentions alternatives such as application_add. No mention of preconditions, e.g., what happens if the job is not archived or an application already exists.

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