App Config Set

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 discloses that fields is a JSON object '透传' (passed through), which is useful, but says nothing about whether writes merge with or replace existing config, what permissions are required, or reversibility.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the write-operation qualifier comes immediately. The terseness is efficient, though it borders on under-specification for a mutation tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a six-parameter write tool with no annotations the description is too sparse. Merge-vs-replace semantics of the fields object and any auth requirements are absent, leaving the agent without key operational context.

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 all six parameters including app_name's source (app_list) and host/port/scheme details. The description's note that fields is a pass-through JSON object adds minor value, but does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 (修改/modify) and resource (应用配置项/app config), plus flags it as a write operation, so an agent immediately knows what it does. However, it offers no differentiation from the very close sibling app_config_set_sys, which is also a config-write tool, leaving the agent to guess which one applies.

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 guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit cue is the parenthetical '写操作' (write operation), which does not tell the agent when to choose this over app_config_set_sys or app_config_list.

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