acs_set_push_flag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the key consequence (automatic config delivery on next connection) but omits details like persistence, reversibility, or whether it overrides existing flags. While the main behavior is clear, deeper side effects are not addressed.

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 a single, compact sentence that states the action first and the consequence second, with no redundant information.

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 flag-setting operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it lacks context about workflow placement relative to sibling tools (e.g., whether this flag is consumed by acs_push_config) and does not explain what happens if the device is offline or the flag is set repeatedly.

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 single parameter 'sn' is fully documented in the schema (device serial number, default ARC2025001). The description adds no additional parameter information, so the schema suffices; 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 tool's function: setting the Push flag to trigger automatic configuration delivery on the device's next connection. The verb '设置' (set) and resource 'Push 标志' (Push flag) are specific, and the deferred-trigger behavior ('下次连接时') distinguishes it from immediate push tools like acs_push_config.

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 the tool is used to schedule configuration deployment via a flag, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as acs_push_config or acs_deploy_config. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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