set_obfuscation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool sets the mode and returns settings, without mentioning side effects (e.g., connection disruption), prerequisites (e.g., being connected), or error handling. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 very concise with a clear structure: a title line, a one-sentence explanation, and formatted Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 description covers the basic function, parameter, and return value, which is adequate for a simple tool. However, it lacks usage context, such as when to apply (e.g., while connected) or potential side effects. Given the output schema exists, the return is documented externally, but behavioral completeness is still 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?

The schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, but the description lists the allowed values for the 'mode' parameter (auto, off, wireguard-port, etc.), adding valuable information beyond the schema. However, it does not explain what each mode does, which would further enhance understanding.

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 purpose: setting anti-censorship/obfuscation mode for disguising VPN traffic. It mentions the specific resource ('anti-censorship / obfuscation mode') and verb ('Set'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_daita or set_protocol.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, it does not provide conditions (e.g., only when connected) or mention when not to use it. Siblings like set_dns or set_location are different, but no comparative guidance is given.

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