Set Comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'set' — it never states that this mutates the underlying database, whether the write is persistent/undoable, what permissions or open-file state are required, or what happens if an address already has a comment. 'Set' implies mutation, but no consequence is disclosed.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the kind enumeration immediately after; nothing is redundant. It is efficient, though brevity here comes partly at the cost of missing information rather than pure economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a 4-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin: address format, binary identifier semantics, and write behavior are all absent.

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 0% across 4 parameters, yet the description only explains 'kind' (enumerating plate/pre/eol/post/repeatable and the eol default). It says nothing about the required 'binary', 'address' (format? hex? virtual address vs offset?), or 'comment' parameters, leaving three required inputs undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('设置注释' at a specified address), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rename_function or rename_data. It also names the tool-specific concept 'kind' with its allowed values, so an agent knows this is the comment-annotation operation. No explicit sibling differentiation beyond the resource name, keeping it at 4.

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 no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as rename_data or rename_variable, nor any preconditions (e.g. that the address must be inside a disassembled function or that the database must be open for writing). The only usage hint is the kind default, which is parameter-level information rather than when-to-use guidance.

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