close_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose concrete consequences: seekers can no longer see or apply, and the job drops out of matching. It does not state whether the close is reversible/reopenable or what the response contains, so it is good but not complete.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: action and prerequisite first, consequences second. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the action, auth requirement, and post-close effects. The only meaningful gap is reversibility, which an agent might care about before closing a posting.

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 coverage is 0% and the description never mentions job_id or its expected format, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. However, the single parameter is a self-evident identifier matching the described resource, keeping this at the minimum-viable level rather than deficient.

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 (关闭已发布的招聘岗位 / close a published job posting), and the effect clause makes the action unambiguous. It does not name the counterpart sibling (publish_job) to sharpen the boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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 supplies a prerequisite (需要 employer 角色) and an implied condition for use (when a posting should be taken down), but gives no explicit when-not or alternative routing against siblings such as publish_job. Usage is therefore inferred rather than spelled out.

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