bgi_set_onedragon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does well: it discloses the required precondition (BetterGI stopped), that it auto-backs up, that it echoes before/after diffs, and that dry_run avoids the write. It omits error behavior for invalid field values (e.g. an illegal task name) and whether partial updates leave the rest of the JSON untouched.

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?

Front-loaded with what is changed and where, followed by the prerequisite, safety behavior, and preview flag — every clause earns its place. The single dense run-on paragraph is heavy for non-Chinese readers but not padded.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the precondition, backup/diff guarantees, and preview semantics that an agent needs to call it safely. It could still mention what a successful call returns or how to recover the backup, but the essentials are covered.

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% and each of the 13 params is documented in-schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description's enumeration of fields (秘境/队伍/合成台地区/收工动作/保留原粹/按星期换秘境/任务顺序与启停) roughly mirrors the schema without adding format or interaction rules beyond it.

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 (改/modify) and resource (「一条龙」配置) and even names the target file path User\OneDragon\<名>.json, then enumerates the settings it touches (秘境/队伍/合成台地区/收工动作/按星期换秘境/任务顺序). It is distinguishable from create/add-group siblings by the explicit write-to-existing-config framing, though it never names those siblings to contrast with.

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?

Gives a hard prerequisite (BetterGI must not be running, with the reason: it will write the file back and overwrite) and a preview path (dry_run=true 只预览). It does not say when to use bgi_create_onedragon or bgi_add_group_to_onedragon instead, so alternatives are left to inference.

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