eda_sys_setting_restore_default

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explicitly discloses the destructive side effect: '本操作将会丢失所有设置项' (this operation will lose all settings) and returns a boolean success value. It does not explicitly say 'irreversible' or mention permissions, but the prominent data-loss warning is sufficient for a destructive operation.

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 definition is compact and front-loads the API signature and core purpose. There is some redundancy between '全局恢复默认设置' and the remark restating restore-all-defaults, but the data-loss warning and return type each earn their 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?

For a destructive action with no required parameters and no output schema, the description provides the purpose, global scope, destructive consequence, and boolean return type. It lacks explicit irreversibility phrasing, but an agent can safely invoke it with the information given.

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%: both 'args' and 'windowId' have descriptions, so the baseline applies. The signature 'restoreDefault()' hints that the args array should be empty, but the description does not otherwise explain parameters; the schema carries the load.

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 a specific verb (restore), resource (all EDA settings), and global scope. Phrases like '全局恢复默认设置' and '将所有 EDA 设置恢复到默认状态' unambiguously define the operation and distinguish it from setting-specific getters/modifiers.

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?

No when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The only usage-related note is a caution to be careful because all settings will be lost; there is no statement about user confirmation, prerequisites, or when a more targeted setting operation should be preferred.

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