sheZhiShiJieGuan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation ('设置或更新') but says nothing about whether existing settings are overwritten or merged, whether the caller needs an existing entry, or what permissions/scope apply. For an unannotated write tool this is a substantial gap.

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 clause, front-loaded with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than deliberate concision.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation target, the description should explain the upsert behavior and result. It instead provides only a restated purpose, leaving an agent unable to predict the effect on existing worldbuilding entries.

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% — both leiXing (type, with examples like magic system, geography, history) and neiRong (detailed content) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, length, or naming-convention detail beyond that, so 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?

The description states a specific verb pair and resource: '设置或更新世界观设定' (set or update worldbuilding settings). An agent can tell this writes world-building lore, but the description never references the sibling read tool huoQuShiJieGuan, leaving sibling differentiation to inference from names 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the sibling query tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The word '或更新' implies an upsert path but doesn't say when update applies versus initial set.

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