Manage app server IP whitelist

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — writes require confirm:true — and signals that 'set' overwrites the whole list. It stops short of saying which actions are irreversible or what delete/set return.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the resource and then the action breakdown; zero filler. It is arguably over-compressed for a destructive multi-action tool, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With 7 parameters, a destructive hint and no output schema, the description should at least distinguish read actions (list/status) from mutating ones and explain the app scoping parameter. It covers confirm and action well but leaves the agent guessing about the app parameter and what list/status return.

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 57%; id, ip, ids and ips are documented in the schema, and the description adds meaning for confirm (write precondition) and the action enum semantics. The app parameter and the exact confirm semantics (required only for writes, not for list/status) remain unexplained in both places.

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 names the specific resource (服务端 API IP 白名单) and enumerates the five operations mapped to the action enum, so an agent knows exactly what the tool covers. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like yunxin_app_admin or yunxin_app_keys, which keeps it from 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 action-to-operation mapping (list/status/set/edit/delete) implies which variant to pick, and '写入需 confirm: true' gives a concrete precondition for write paths. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling app-management tools, and no when-not conditions.

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