update_option

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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden; it does disclose that updates are merged rather than replacing the file, that validation is weak, and that the result is a success message with a file path or an error. It omits whether changes require a restart, how invalid keys are handled, and whether writing to disk can fail destructively.

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 the purpose, then the warning, then parameters, return, and a concrete example. The labeled sections are easy to scan; a few lines (e.g. the explicit '返回' block despite an output schema) could be trimmed without loss.

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 tool whose only input is an unconstrained nested dict, the description supplies the merge behavior, an example, and pointers to authoritative resource docs for the grammar. Residual gaps are how the write interacts with a running session and what happens on partial validation failure; an output schema exists, so return shape need not be spelled out.

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 0% and the lone parameter is a free-form object with additionalProperties, so the description must compensate — and it does, by naming the supported top-level sections, stating the merge semantics, giving a nested example, and pointing to the schema/reference resources for the full field syntax.

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 and resource: update the JMComic configuration and persist it to a file, with the merged sections (auth, client, download, dir_rule, plugins) named. No sibling tool is config-editing, so it is distinguishable, though the overlap with `login` for auth settings is not addressed.

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 real prerequisite ('this tool performs only limited validation', consult jmcomic://option/schema and jmcomic://option/reference first), which is useful context for calling it. However, it never says when to prefer this over alternatives such as `login` when the update touches auth, and no exclusions are stated.

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