acs_deploy_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it automatically starts an HTTP server and uses TR-069 Download RPC, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like device reboot or config replacement, and the return result is vague.

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 concise—two sentences total—with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the mechanism, the second clarifies the optional sn parameter. No wasted words.

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?

The description gives the high-level workflow but lacks critical details. There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return value format, but it only says '返回结果' (return result). It also omits any warnings about config deployment consequences or the fileType parameter, even though it's in the schema. This is insufficient for a tool that deploys configs.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it restates the file path requirement and the sn fallback, both already in the schema. It doesn't mention fileType at all, so the description adds little over the structured input.

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: '一键下发配置文件到设备' (one-click deploy config file to device), and details the mechanism (start HTTP server, TR-069 Download RPC). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like acs_upload_config or acs_download_config by specifying the TR-069 deployment flow.

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 implies usage context—deploying a local .cfg file to a device via TR-069—but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like acs_push_config or acs_upload_config. The fallback behavior for sn is mentioned, but no when-to-use guidance is provided.

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