set_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the token is persisted to ~/.ppw-mcp.json and must be refreshed after expiry. It omits whether a bad token is rejected or overwritten silently, but the persistence and lifecycle behavior are genuinely useful.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the acquisition steps, then persistence/lifecycle. Every sentence earns its place for a credential-setting tool, though the multi-step F12 walkthrough makes it denser than strictly minimal.

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, and the description covers persistence, the acquisition path, and refresh-after-expiry. What an agent needs to call it correctly is essentially present, missing only failure/validation semantics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage on the single 'token' parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining the exact source (F12 -> Application -> Cookie -> http_tK_cache) and that the raw cookie value is what gets passed.

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 concrete verb+resource: it saves the login credential (http_tK_cache cookie value) for 排排网. An agent can tell this persists an auth token rather than reading anything, which separates it from siblings like check_auth. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Gives clear context for when to invoke: after logging into simuwang.com and, crucially, again after the token expires. It does not name alternatives (e.g. use check_auth to verify validity first), but the usage trigger is unambiguous.

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