wps_word_resolve_revisions

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

The description explains the behavioral effect of each action ('修订变为正式内容' for accept, '还原为修订前状态' for reject). However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose that the operation is irreversible, whether it requires document save, or if it works across the entire document only. Given no annotations, a 3 is reasonable as it provides some behavioral context but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise, at one sentence with two clauses. Every part is informative: it states the verb, the resource, and the two actions with their effects. No extraneous words or redundant information.

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?

The tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is complete in stating what the tool does, but it lacks critical context for an AI agent: e.g., whether the operation can be undone, whether it requires the document to be open, or what happens after execution (return value). For a simple tool, a 2 is appropriate given these gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage (the 'action' parameter is described as '默认 accept'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it explains the effect of 'accept' and 'reject' actions, which the schema does not. This adds some meaning but doesn't significantly overcome the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to accept or reject all revisions in a WPS Word document. It uses specific verbs ('接受', '拒绝') and identifies the resource ('修订'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wps_word_get_revisions by targeting resolution rather than retrieval.

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. For instance, it doesn't mention that this tool operates on all revisions at once, and that selective resolution might require other tools (like wps_word_get_revisions followed by individual actions). There's no explanation of prerequisites or context for use.

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