switch_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses several behavioral traits: accepted input forms, return messages for success, dry-run mode, and error handling with listing of valid options. It does not state whether the operation requires specific game state permissions, whether it is reversible, or other side-effect details, but the return and dry-run disclosures are substantial.

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 structured with clear segments for purpose, input, return values, and next step. It is front-loaded with the action, and every section adds useful information. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary because it describes return messages despite an output schema existing, but the extra context is justified for a zero-coverage parameter.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an existing output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers parameter semantics, return behavior (including dry-run and error), and a next-step workflow. The main gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like switch_tactic. Still, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the single parameter. It does so thoroughly: set_name can be a name from combat.sets (with examples like shoot/dodge/focus_mothership) or an abstract name (combat/tank/retreat/chase/team) that is translated through combat.set_map. This fully compensates for the empty schema description.

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: '切换当前套装 / 阵型' (switch current set/formation). It clearly tells an agent what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling switch_tactic, even though both are switching operations. The resource is clear, but sibling differentiation is left to the 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like switch_tactic or game_action. It mentions a follow-up step ('下一步：perceive_game 确认切换生效'), but that is workflow context after invocation, not criteria for selecting this tool. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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