set_config_value

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 states the tool sets a value in a config file, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention potential side effects, permissions required, whether changes are reversible, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, with zero wasted text.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the value (e.g., success/failure response, side effects), lacks context about the config file's nature, and provides minimal behavioral transparency, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('path' and 'value') with descriptions and examples. The tool description doesn't add any meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or constraints, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps either.

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 action ('设置' meaning 'set') and the target ('配置文件中指定路径的值' meaning 'value at specified path in config file'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_config_value' or 'get_config_summary' beyond the basic action difference.

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 like 'get_config_value' or 'preview_matching'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions, offering only the basic function without usage context.

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