set_form_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the scope (form-level) and lists the properties affected, which helps the agent understand what gets modified. However, it doesn't disclose whether changes are persistent, whether validation occurs on the backend, or the exact effect of each property (e.g., what 'labelWrap' changes visually). For a mutation tool it provides minimal but non-contradictory behavioral context.

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?

A single sentence with zero wasted words. The verb and scope are front-loaded, and the parameter list is placed immediately after. Every word earns its 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 5-parameter settings tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is fairly complete in naming the target properties and locating the UI panel. However, it omits the 'fullness' parameter entirely and gives no hints about value ranges or validation behavior. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is adequate but leaves the agent to infer how each property maps to UI behavior, particularly for the undocumented parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names 4 of the 5 parameters (labelCol、wrapperCol、labelWrap、layout) but omits 'fullness'. It doesn't explain semantics of each parameter (e.g., valid values for layout, what labelCol of a number means as a span). Naming the parameters adds some value over the bare schema, but the incomplete list and lack of value constraints leave gaps.

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?

States a specific verb (设置/set) and resource (表单级属性/form-level properties) while explicitly listing the affected parameters (labelCol、wrapperCol、labelWrap、layout). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like set_property (component-level) and set_full_schema, which handle different scopes.

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 phrase 表单级属性 (form-level properties) and the mention of the right-side 表单 panel imply this is for form-wide settings, distinguishing it from component-level alternatives like set_property or add_component. However, there's no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The context is implied rather than explicit.

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