update_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the operation persists to a specific file path and that the API key will not be written to the file, a security-relevant behavioral detail. However, it does not mention merge behavior or error handling, though parameter descriptions partially cover this.

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, front-loaded with the main action and persistence target, followed by a key security note. No redundant information or filler.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with three optional and fully self-describing parameters. The description covers persistence and API key handling, which are the key non-obvious behaviors. An output schema is present, so return-value details are not needed. Minor gap: no mention of implications if the config file is missing or unreadable.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a comprehensive description (e.g., '留空则不改' meaning 'leave empty to not change'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning; it only contributes context about how the API key is handled, which is not a parameter.

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 clearly states the tool modifies and persists image recognition configuration to a specific file. The verb 'modify' plus resource 'config' distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_image and get_config, which read or process images.

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 establishes the tool's purpose as modifying config and persisting to ~/.deepseek-eyes/config.json, implying usage for changing configuration at runtime. It also provides a clear usage guideline about providing the API key via environment variable rather than storing it in the file. It does not explicitly exclude reading tools, but the context makes the usage obvious.

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