bgi_js_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that writes are validated against settings.json's schema (select values must be within options, checkbox coerced to boolean) and that the config group is automatically backed up. It stops short of stating permissions needed, failure behavior, or what a listing returns structurally.

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?

Two dense sentences with the storage-location caveat front-loaded and the read/write split following immediately; no filler. The parenthetical em-dash aside is long but it encodes the most important non-obvious fact.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers storage location, both operating modes, validation rules, and backup behavior — enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around return shape for the listing mode and error handling.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description does add useful semantics — 'set' absent means read, present means write with validation, and 'name' equals both the script directory and the config group name — but the schema already conveys most of this.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource ('读写官方 JS 脚本的设置') and immediately clarifies a surprising storage detail (settings live in the config group's jsScriptSettingsObject, not on disk), which separates it from disk-oriented siblings like bgi_list_js_scripts or bgi_install_js. It does not, however, name any sibling explicitly to route the agent.

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 two modes are spelled out clearly: omit 'set' to enumerate all configurable items and current values, include 'set' to validate-then-write. That is a clear use condition tied to the parameter, but there is no mention of when to prefer bgi_set_config or which scripts qualify as 'official'.

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