安全配置 IsingQ API Key

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

Discloses a critical behavioral property beyond annotations: the Key never enters tool parameters, the conversation, or return values, and the input happens via an OS secure prompt. This is real security context the agent cannot get from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the invocation condition before the mechanism and the security guarantee. Zero filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Purpose, trigger, mechanism, and secret-handling are all covered; nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely is missing.

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% and the single `force` parameter is already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of '更换' loosely maps to force but adds no syntax, default, or edge-case detail 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?

Specific verb+resource: '打开操作系统安全输入框并把 Key 保存到本机私有配置' tells the agent exactly what happens, distinct from all solve/knowledge siblings.

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?

Explicit trigger condition ('仅在用户明确要求配置或更换 IsingQ API Key 时调用') states when to call and implicitly when not to. No sibling overlap exists to route away from.

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