whistle_value_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create or update' without mentioning idempotency, overwrite behavior, authentication requirements, or consequences of updating an existing Value. 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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the verb, resource, and use case without unnecessary words. It is concise and earns its place.

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 tool has a simple signature (2 params, full schema coverage) and no output schema. The description explains the resource's purpose but lacks behavioral details and explicit usage guidance. It is adequate but not complete, leaving room for improvement.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'name' and 'content' have descriptions. The tool description adds that Values are for Mock data/templates, which provides context for the parameters, but does not add any syntactic or format details beyond the schema.

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's function: '创建或更新 Value' (create or update Value), with the specific resource type (Value) and its purpose (storing Mock data, templates). This distinguishes it from siblings like whistle_value_list, whistle_value_get, and whistle_value_remove.

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 implies when to use this tool (for managing Values that store Mock data/templates) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like whistle_mock_create or whistle_rule_set. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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