clash.verge.set_log_level

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions setting a config value and 'light confirmation', but does not explain side effects, whether a restart is needed, or any permissions beyond the owner hint. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It includes a useful parenthetical context and is perfectly sized for a simple tool. Every part serves a purpose.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic action and the confirmation requirement. However, it lacks important behavioral context (e.g., immediacy of effect, prerequisites) that would make it fully complete. Adequate but with gaps.

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 describes both parameters (enum for value, boolean required for confirmed) with 100% coverage. The description adds only the phrase 'light confirmation', which doesn't materially enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Set' and identifies the resource 'log-level' in 'config.yaml', with an owner qualifier. This clearly distinguishes it from other set_* tools like set_ipv6, though the 'verge_clash_base owner' phrase may be unclear to some.

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 does not provide any when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools (e.g., clash.config.validate_change for staged changes). It only implies changing the log level, leaving the agent to decide appropriateness.

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