App Config Set Sys

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose two meaningful behavioral traits: it is a write operation and it affects global application behavior. However, it omits permissions required, reversibility, merge/replace semantics for the 'fields' object, and any rate or auth constraints.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the verb and resource and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity leaves it under-informative for the tool's complexity.

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 six-parameter, nested-object write tool that changes global app behavior, the description does not explain field expectations, required privileges, or alternative siblings. An output schema exists, so return values need not be covered, but the missing usage and behavioral detail leaves significant gaps.

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 83%, so the schema already documents host, port, fields, scheme, and profile. The description mentions no parameters and adds no meaning beyond the schema, which fits the baseline 3 when structured data carries the load.

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 names the specific action ('修改') and resource ('应用中心系统配置'), and clarifies it is a write operation affecting global app behavior. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling app_config_set or other app_config_* tools, so an agent gets a clear purpose but no sibling routing.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus app_config_set, app_config_auto_update, or other config tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is the generic parenthetical that it is a write operation with global impact.

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