subagent_config_set

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

The description discloses that configuration is saved persistently to a specific file (~/.subagent_config.json) and auto-loaded on restart. This is sufficient behavioral information for a config-set tool, given no annotations are provided. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior or security implications.

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 short sentences in Chinese concisely convey purpose, persistence, and file location. Every word earns its place; no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no complex behavior) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the core action and persistence aspect. It could mention return values or error cases, but these are likely covered by the output schema.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description confirms that api_key and api_base are saved but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 sets Subagent provider API configuration and saves it persistently. The verb 'set' and resource 'Subagent provider API configuration' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like subagent_config_get or subagent_config_list, relying on the name alone.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to avoid using it, or comparison to related tools such as subagent_config_get.

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