set_wecom_cookie

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses key behavioral traits: the cookie is saved to a local configuration file and automatically used for subsequent requests. This is sufficient for a simple setter tool, though it does not mention error handling or validation.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, each providing essential information: the action and the acquisition method. No wasted words.

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 has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the purpose, how to get the input, and the effect, though it could mention what happens if the cookie is invalid.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with a basic description for 'cookie'. The tool description adds value by explaining how to obtain the cookie value (browser steps), which is crucial semantic context beyond the schema's '完整的 Cookie 字符串'.

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 explicitly states the action ('保存', save) and resource ('企业微信 Cookie 到本地配置文件'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying that the cookie will be automatically used in subsequent requests, differentiating from fetch_wecom_doc and check_wecom_auth.

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 provides a clear method for obtaining the cookie (from browser), implying that this tool is a prerequisite for siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use alternatives, though the context strongly implies usage before fetch_wecom_doc or check_wecom_auth.

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