set_aws_origin_request_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'set policy' without explaining effects (replaces existing policy?), reversibility, permission requirements, or side effects. The parameter descriptions in schema are minimal ('domain name' and 'policy ID'), adding little transparency.

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 concise sentence that states the purpose. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what happens after setting (e.g., confirmation, effect on domain). It lacks usage context, prerequisites, and any indication of success/failure behavior. The tool serves a mutating purpose but provides no completeness.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no extra value provided.

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 '设置 AWS 回源请求头策略' clearly states the verb (set) and resource (AWS origin request header policy). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_aws_response_policy (which sets response policy) and various set_domain_* tools (which set domain-level configs). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., domain must exist) or specify scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The agent is left to infer from the resource name and sibling list, which is insufficient.

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