cocos_set_wechat_appid

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states a write operation ('Write appid'), implying mutation, but fails to mention permissions, effects on existing data, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and risks.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address mutation effects, parameter details, or return values, making it inadequate for a tool that modifies configuration files.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'appid' but not 'project_path', and adds no details on format, constraints, or examples. This insufficiently clarifies the two required parameters beyond their names.

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 clearly states the action ('Write appid') and target resource ('builder.json for the wechatgame platform'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_set_wechat_subpackages' or other configuration tools, which slightly reduces its clarity in context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other configuration tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic action stated.

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