clash.verge.configure_tun

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the two-step confirmation process and mentions system-level verification, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether changes persist across restarts, require elevated permissions, or could disrupt connectivity).

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?

Two sentences conveying all critical information: purpose, owner, and multi-step usage. No redundant wording. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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?

While the confirmation process is well described, the tool lacks an output schema and annotations. The description does not specify return values, failure modes, or the nature of system-level verification. For a configuration mutation, more context about persistence and impacts would improve completeness.

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% with each parameter having a description. The description adds operational context: the patch parameter's example ({enable: true, stack: 'system'}) clarifies expected structure, and the confirmation process explains how confirmed and confirmNonce interact. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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?

Clearly identifies the action (Configure), resource (TUN section), and target (config.yaml). The description also notes the owner context (verge_clash_base), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly describes the strong confirmation process: first call without confirmed to get nonce, then retry with nonce. This guides the agent on correct invocation. However, it does not indicate when to prefer this tool over siblings like configure_dns_override or configure_ports.

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