save_setting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'save user settings', which implies mutation but does not disclose persistence behavior, overwrite semantics, side effects, errors, or return values. For a write operation, this is a significant gap that leaves the agent uncertain about consequences.

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 short sentence with no filler words. It is very concise and efficient, though it might border on under-specification. Every word is meaningful ('保存' = save, '用户' = user, '设定' = settings), so it earns a good score for conciseness.

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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and only a minimal description, the tool is contextually incomplete. For a mutation tool, an agent needs to know what happens on save, whether the operation is idempotent, and what the response format is. The description and schema do not provide this, so the tool is not fully self-explanatory.

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 100% – both 'key' and 'value' have descriptions ('设定键名' and '设定值'). The description itself adds no extra meaning about parameter usage, allowed values, or format beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema is complete, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '保存用户设定' (Save user settings) clearly indicates the verb 'save' and resource 'user settings', matching the tool name closely. It is not a pure tautology but adds minimal differentiation from siblings like get_setting, which is presumed to read settings. However, it does not specify what kind of settings or scope, so it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from other save-like operations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling get_setting is implied as the read counterpart, but the description does not state that this tool is for writing or setting values, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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