set_full_extra_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the destructive overwrite behavior ('覆盖此前数据配置'), which is important. However, it does not mention other relevant behaviors such as whether the entire extra is replaced vs. merged, atomicity, error conditions, or return values, leaving some gaps.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the action and its scope, then stating the destructive behavior. No wasted words, and it is efficiently structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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 nested object complexity and the lack of annotation or output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It explains the tool's purpose and overwrite behavior but does not clarify the required internal structure of the 'extra' object or provide any guidance on permissions or side effects. It is adequate for a simple call but leaves room for ambiguity about constructing the object correctly.

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 only describes 'extra' as '完整 extra 对象' (complete extra object) with additionalProperties true. The description adds value by enumerating the three expected subfields (expressionItems, outputItems, detectionDateConfig), giving the agent concrete knowledge of what to include. It does not specify whether they are all required or their exact formats, but it goes beyond the schema's vagueness.

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 states the verb 'set' and resource 'extra', explicitly enumerates the three component keys (expressionItems, outputItems, detectionDateConfig), and notes that it overwrites previous configuration. This clearly distinguishes it from incremental siblings like add_output_item, set_detection_date, and add_detection_date_item.

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 '一次性设置' (set at once) and '覆盖此前数据配置' (overwrites previous data configuration) imply this is for a full replacement rather than incremental updates, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to choose this over the many sibling tools. Usage context is implied, not explicit.

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