resource_style_add

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds the important detail that this is an upsert keyed by aspect + scope, so an agent knows an existing entry with the same key will be overwritten rather than duplicated. It does not discuss permissions, priority effects, or return behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the overwrite key is stated immediately. It is arguably too terse for a 7-parameter mutation tool, which caps it below 5.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and key semantics but omits how optional params like priority, project, and workdir interact and what happens to non-keyed fields on overwrite. Annotations carry the destructive profile, so the remaining gap is moderate.

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 all 7 parameters are documented in the schema itself; baseline is 3. The description adds only the key-composition fact (aspect + scope), which is a small increment over what the schema already conveys.

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?

States a specific verb pair (新增/覆盖 = add/overwrite) and resource (风格要求 / style requirement), plus the key composition (aspect + scope). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like resource_style_list and resource_style_remove, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 on when to use this vs resource_style_remove or resource_style_list, and no prerequisites stated. The upsert semantics are implied by 新增/覆盖 but the agent is left to infer the workflow.

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