set_validator

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 discloses only that it mutates the x-validator array, but not how — whether it appends, whether existing validators at the path are retained or replaced, what happens on duplicate rules, or whether any permission is required. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful disclosure 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?

A single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core verb and target. No wasted words. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices informative content for brevity.

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 2-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral detail, and any clarification of the undocumented 'path' parameter. An agent calling this correctly must infer semantics that should be stated.

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 50% and the description adds no parameter information at all. The 'rule' parameter has an example in the schema itself, so the description provides no added value there, and 'path' is completely undocumented in both the description and the schema. The description does nothing to compensate for the missing path semantics.

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 (添加/add) and resource (校验规则到 x-validator 数组). It identifies the exact target collection ('x-validator array') and is implicitly distinguishable from its paired sibling remove_validator since adding vs removing are opposite operations. Loses a point because it doesn't explicitly state the add is a push/append operation nor name the sibling.

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 when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the component/path must already exist before adding a validator), and no mention of the obviously related alternative remove_validator. An agent has no guidance on ordering with respect to other component-operations in the sibling list.

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