update_option

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it discloses merge semantics, file persistence, limited validation, and the success/error return shape. It does not detail backup behavior or consequences of a bad update beyond the warning, but 'only performs limited validation' plus the recommendation to consult schema/reference covers the main risk.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then gives the critical warning, parameter explanation, return behavior, and a compact example. Every section earns its place and no sentence is filler.

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 an open-ended nested config object with no annotation support, the description supplies enough to invoke it and routes the agent to the authoritative syntax resources. It also covers return shape even though an output schema exists. Full JmOption syntax is intentionally not embedded here, but the description compensates with references and an example.

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 is minimal (open object with additionalProperties true and 0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by defining option_updates as a merge dictionary, naming supported nested areas (client, download, dir_rule), and providing a concrete example. It does not enumerate the full option grammar, but explicitly delegates that to jmcomic://option/schema and /reference.

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 first sentence states a concrete action ('更新 JMComic 配置') with a clear resource and persistent effect ('保存到文件'). It is distinct from all sibling tools, which concern login, downloads, album browsing, and post-processing; this is unambiguously the config-update tool.

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 gives clear context: it is for merging JmOption updates into the saved config and emphasizes reading the option schema/reference before calling because validation is limited. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'do not use for X', but among the sibling list there is no close alternative and the intended when is clear.

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