Logger Archive 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 only that this is a write operation (写操作); it says nothing about permissions required, whether existing archive config is overwritten, whether the change takes effect immediately, or any auth/rate considerations.

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 compact sentence with the write-operation nature and required parameters front-loaded. No wasted prose, though it is arguably too terse to be maximally useful.

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 needn't be explained, and the schema fully documents the 9 parameters. The gaps are behavioral: with no annotations and no side-effect/overwrite/auth disclosure, the definition is only minimally complete for a config-mutating tool.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description contributes only the redundancy that switch/file_path are required and the rest optional, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema.

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 (设置/set) and resource (日志归档配置/log archive configuration), so an agent can distinguish it from the read-oriented sibling logger_archive_query. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the noun phrase is precise enough to identify the operation.

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?

Usage is implied by '写操作' (write operation) and the required-parameter note, letting an agent infer this is the mutation counterpart to logger_archive_query. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing NAS reachability) or of logger_clear/logger_export as alternatives.

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