okx_set_llm_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the MiniMax-only support, which is a key behavioral limitation. However, it does not state whether settings are persisted, applied globally, or affect existing AI agent sessions, leaving some ambiguity about side effects.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains zero redundant content. The provider limitation is stated concisely without sacrificing clarity. This is an example of efficient, well-structured description.

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 simple configuration tool with 3 optional, self-descriptive parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, what settings it configures, and the current provider limitation. It could mention persistence or immediate effects, but given the low complexity, the description is largely complete.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description reinforces that these are the LLM settings and adds the MiniMax-only constraint relevant to the model parameter, but it does not add deeper semantics like default behavior or interaction between parameters. The schema carries the main burden, so 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 clearly states the action ('Configure LLM settings') and the specific resources (temperature, max tokens). It also discloses the v1 provider limitation (MiniMax only), which distinguishes this tool from potential provider-specific alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous and directly aligns with the tool name.

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 usage constraint: v1 supports MiniMax only, implying use with other providers is not yet available. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like okx_configure_skills or okx_run_copilot. No alternative tools are mentioned, so the context is limited.

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