配置高德 Key

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that a real call to the Amap API is made against a test address first, that the write to the local config file is gated on validation passing, and that no restart or client reconfiguration is needed. For a mutating, open-world tool this is exactly the side-effect and sequencing information an agent needs.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then validation/write behavior, then the practical consequence for the caller. Each sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations covering read-only and open-world status, the description is essentially complete. Minor omissions: what error surface appears if validation fails, and whether a re-run overwrites an existing configured key.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('高德开放平台的「Web服务」类型 Key'). The description reinforces the Web-service key type constraint but adds no new format, length, or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb-and-resource pair: 录入并校验高德地图「Web服务」类型的 Key. It also scopes the effect (all later queries use it automatically), which cleanly separates this config tool from the query-oriented siblings search_nearby and search_along_route.

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?

Clearly states the trigger condition — the user provides a Key and calling this tool completes authentication — and explicitly rules out the alternative approaches (editing client config, restarting). It does not name a sibling or fallback tool, but the alternatives it excludes are the relevant ones for a setup step.

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