set_brewer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden—and it delivers. It discloses that tea amount scales proportionally, water temperature and time stay unchanged, stored values are always baseline amounts, conversion happens only at display time, and reset restores defaults. This goes well beyond a typical setter description.

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 well-structured: purpose and examples first, then storage/default behavior, then a clean parameter list. Every line adds operational value and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers defaults, scaling semantics, storage normalization, reset behavior, and parameter constraints. Since an output schema exists, explaining return values is unnecessary. No critical calling information is missing.

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%, but the description fully compensates by documenting each parameter's unit, valid range, activation condition ('>=0 才生效'), and reset behavior. An agent can correctly construct calls without any external knowledge.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('修改壶具容量') and gives concrete user-phrase examples, making the tool's function unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from all listed siblings, which concern records, inventory, recommendations, and reviews.

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 supplies clear trigger examples ('我的茶壶是500ml' / '冷泡壶换成2L') that tell an agent exactly when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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