Set TraeCN Setting Text

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the behavior of confirming the field value afterwards, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing values or requiring the section/label to exist. The added confirmation detail earns a mid-range score.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and key distinguishing detail ('one text value') and the confirmation step. No filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 required params, all documented) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It does not address error cases or prerequisites beyond the schema's exact-match instructions, but for this setting operation, the information is sufficient. Slightly more detail on the confirmation behavior or edge cases would push to 5.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema, including the requirement that label and section match exact values from listing tools. The description's mention of 'identified by section and label' reinforces this but adds no new information beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema covers all parameters.

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 clearly states the action: entering a single text value into a setting field, identified by section and label. It uses a specific verb ('enter') and resource ('setting field'), and the phrase 'one text value' distinguishes it from sibling tools like traecn_set_setting_toggle (toggle) and traecn_select_setting_option (selecting an option). The confirmation step also differentiates it from other setter tools.

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 description implies usage for text-based settings, contrasting with toggles and option selectors among siblings. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling tool names and the description's emphasis on 'text value'. This provides adequate but not exhaustive guidance.

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