set_domain_origin_protocol

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

No annotations exist, placing full burden on the description. The description lacks any behavioral details such as whether the operation overwrites existing settings, is idempotent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. It only restates the tool's purpose.

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 single-sentence description is extremely concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, and every word earns its place.

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?

Despite the tool being relatively straightforward, the description omits important context: no indication of return values, prerequisites (e.g., domain must exist), or behavior when parameters are omitted (e.g., default ports). The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify the expected response.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning or context beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies as the description does not compensate for any schema gaps.

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 explicitly states the verb (设置/set) and resource (域名回源协议/domain origin protocol), clearly indicating the tool's function to set the origin protocol for a domain. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like query_domain_origin_protocol and other set_* 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?

No explicit usage guidelines or alternatives are provided. The description implies use for setting origin protocol, but does not specify when to use versus querying tools (e.g., query_domain_origin_protocol) or prerequisites like domain existence. Usage context is implied by the name and sibling structure.

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