ui_policy_set

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

Annotations mark this as a write with destructiveHint=true, yet the description never warns that setting a policy can hide information from users, whether the change persists across sessions, or how it interacts with existing overrides. It also doesn't clarify that '透明' (transparent) means visible-to-agent-only versus user-visible, which is the core behavioral distinction.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally fine, but its brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 destructive, four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits persistence semantics, precedence against ui_override/ui_hide, and the meaning of the visibility enum values. It is not complete enough for an agent to call it correctly in an ambiguous situation.

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%, so the schema already documents topic (with wildcard prefix support), project, workdir, and the visibility enum — baseline 3. The description adds no extra meaning about how prefix wildcards interact with existing policies or what the four visibility levels imply.

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 verb (设置) and a resource category (某类信息 / visibility policy), so the general intent is inferable, but it never states what a 'policy' is or how it differs from siblings like ui_hide, ui_override, or ui_clear that also manipulate visibility. An agent cannot confidently pick this tool over those from the text alone.

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 reference at all, despite six ui_* siblings that appear to overlap. Nothing tells the agent whether this is a persistent policy versus a one-off override or hide.

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