set_domain_origin

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It states 'set' implying mutation, but does not disclose whether the operation replaces all origin settings or merges, whether it is reversible, or any required permissions. The behavioral context is severely lacking.

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 sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be more informative while remaining concise. It is appropriately front-loaded but lacks depth.

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 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the precise effect of the operation. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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 descriptions for each parameter. The tool description itself adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description misses an opportunity to add usage examples or constraints.

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 '设置域名源站配置' (Set domain origin configuration) clearly indicates a verb-resource pair, but it does not distinguish from sibling tools like set_domain_origin_headers or set_domain_origin_host, all of which involve 'origin' settings. The purpose is understood but lacks specificity.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., domain must exist), or alternatives. The description offers no context for the agent to decide between this and similar set_domain_* tools.

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