set_ticket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action of setting the ticket, but does not mention side effects, validation, persistence, or whether it overwrites existing tickets. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 concise sentence that states the purpose directly. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. However, it is arguably too terse, lacking useful context, but conciseness itself is well-achieved.

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?

Given the simple nature (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal and does not explain the role of the ticket in the broader developer tool context. It lacks any relationship to get_ticket/refresh_ticket, and provides no information about expected outcomes or edge cases. For a tool with siblings, this is insufficient.

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% as the parameter 'ticket' has a description ('登录票据'). The tool description essentially repeats that same phrase and adds no additional meaning, such as format, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter.

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 '设置开发者工具登录票据' clearly states the action (set) and the resource (developer tool login ticket). It is specific and unambiguous, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_ticket or refresh_ticket, so it misses the top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or relationships to get_ticket/refresh_ticket. The usage context is entirely implied by the tool name.

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