uci_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a value is set but does not disclose the critical UCI behavior that changes are staged in memory until uci_commit is called. It also omits whether the path must already exist or whether setting can create new options, leaving the agent without essential operational context.

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, concise, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is slightly underspecified because it omits important behavioral context (commit requirement), so it does not fully earn its place as the sole textual guidance.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the transactional nature of UCI changes and the relationship to uci_commit. It does not, leaving a critical gap. The simple schema helps, but the missing operational context makes the description incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with both parameters described: 'path' has a format example and 'value' is explained. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 'Set a UCI option value' uses a specific verb ('set') and resource ('UCI option value'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It inherently distinguishes itself from sibling tools like uci_add, uci_delete, uci_get, and uci_show by describing a uniquely targeted operation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention the need to call uci_commit for changes to persist, nor does it explain that uci_set modifies an existing option rather than adding a new section. Sibling tools exist for commit and revert, but no usage context is given.

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