clash.verge.preferences.configure_theme

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses color format requirements, font_family restrictions, the preview-to-apply workflow, and what fields are excluded. It does not cover error handling or side effects, but covers the main behavioral traits effectively.

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, well-organized paragraph. Every sentence adds value: field list, constraints, exclusions, workflow, capability. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The description mentions 'structured Diff' but does not detail the output format, and there is no output schema. For a mutation tool with preview, more detail on the Diff structure would improve completeness. Still, it covers essential usage aspects.

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%, but the description adds crucial context: null restores default state, font_family rejects dangerous characters, and explicitly states what is not opened. This goes beyond schema patterns to guide correct usage.

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 modifies Clash Verge Theme preferences, listing all specific fields (primary_color, secondary_color, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by noting that 'css_injection and background image paths are NOT opened' and identifies the required capability.

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 explains the two-phase flow (preview then confirm) and the required capability. However, it does not explicitly compare with other preferences tools like configure_layout or set_basic, so the agent lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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