set_parameter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides useful operational details: single undo group, failure throws an error, and the response passes through 'apply_response_cap'. These are meaningful beyond a basic mutating operation, though it doesn't mention permissions or 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?

The description is very concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds new information (mutating flag, undo behavior, error handling, response cap). However, the cryptic term 'apply_response_cap' could be clarified, slightly reducing structure quality.

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 tool with 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain parameter usage, expected return values, or context needed for correct invocation. The undocumented parameters leave significant gaps for an agent trying to call this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides almost no parameter-level semantics. The names ctx, path, parameter, and value are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not explain their meaning, format, or how they interact. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'write parm value' (写 parm 值), identifying the specific action (write) and resource (a parameter). It is distinguished from the sibling 'set_parameters' by its singular focus, though this is implicit rather than explicit. The addition of 'MUTATING' reinforces its purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_parameters' or other mutation tools. The description gives no context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the generic 'write parameter value' statement.

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