set_domain_http2

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the purpose. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether enabling HTTP/2 impacts performance), required permissions, or what happens to the domain configuration. The agent is left uninformed about the tool's behavior beyond the obvious.

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, the brevity sacrifices essential information. It is not bloated, but it is too minimal to be fully helpful.

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 of the tool (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description could be more complete. It does not mention any state requirements, effects on the domain, or relation to other settings. The agent lacks context for safe invocation.

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% (both domain and enable have descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. As per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and no additional value is 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 '设置域名 HTTP/2' clearly states the action (set) and the resource (domain HTTP/2), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_domain_http3 or set_domain_force_https. However, it is essentially a translation of the tool name, adding minimal extra clarity.

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. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it. Sibling tools are many, but no differentiation is offered.

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