为 AppID 设置访问 Token（CI 登录）

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states the token goes only into the local tma config ('仅写入本机 tma 配置'), will not be echoed ('不会回显'), and is a local config write to be used carefully ('属于本地配置写入，请谨慎使用'). These are significant behavioral traits beyond just saying 'set token'. It does not mention overwrite behavior or return values, but for a simple local write tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose (official call, target, token). The second sentence adds important behavioral warnings. It is concise with no filler, though it could have ordered the caution before the detailed effect.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, main side effects, and a caution. However, it omits what constitutes success/failure, whether an existing token is overwritten, and any environmental prerequisites (e.g., tma installed or environment checked). This leaves some gaps for an agent deciding how to handle the result and error recovery.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the purpose of two key parameters: 'AppID' and 'token' (for CI login), but the optional timeoutMs parameter is not mentioned anywhere in the description or schema. The description adds useful semantic context for the required params, but incomplete coverage of all three parameters keeps it at a mid score.

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 and resource: '为指定 AppID 设置 token' (set token for the specified AppID) via '官方 tma set-app-config'. It also clearly scopes the context to CI non-interactive login and identifies the local config write nature, making it easy to distinguish from all sibling tools, none of which touch configuration.

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 gives a clear context for when to use this tool: 'CI 无交互登录用' (for CI non-interactive login). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but no sibling tool appears to be a direct alternative for token configuration, so the context alone is adequate.

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