engine_option_set

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

Annotations already declare that this is a write operation with destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it mutates state. The description adds scope ('引擎私有选项') and an example, but does not explain overwrite behavior, permissions, or other side effects of setting the option.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action and gives a helpful parenthetical example.

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?

Purpose is clear and the schema fully documents the parameters, while annotations cover the mutation safety profile. However, the description omits usage guidelines and mutation side effects, leaving it at minimum viable completeness for a destructive setter with no output schema.

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 100%, and all four parameters (key, value, project, workdir) are documented in the schema. The description mentions key/value implicitly via '选项' and gives an example, but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gives a specific verb (设置) and resource (引擎私有选项), with an example clarifying the kind of option. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as engine_option_clear or engine_options, but the set/clear/list distinction is strongly implied.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The example hints at one use case, but prerequisites and selection relative to engine_option_clear, engine_options, or config_set are absent.

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