set_domain_cache_policy

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic action. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the policy is overwritten or appended, the effect of setting cache_conf to an empty array (deleting custom policies), or any prerequisites or side effects. The schema's parameter description provides some context, but the tool description itself is insufficient.

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 with no wasted words. It is efficient but could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description lacks crucial context such as the effect of the operation (overwrite vs. merge), return values, or prerequisites. The schema partially compensates, but the tool description leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 100%, with both parameters described. The domain parameter description is minimal ('domain'), while cache_conf includes an example and note about deletion. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '设置域名缓存策略' translates to 'Set domain cache policy', which clearly indicates the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_domain_force_https' or the query counterpart 'query_domain_cache_policy', leaving ambiguity about its specific role among many set_domain_* tools.

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. There is no mention of the query_domain_cache_policy for reading, nor any relationship to other set_domain_* tools. The agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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