resource_style_remove

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation/destruction signal is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond this - no note on idempotency, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the aspect does not match an existing requirement.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the gaps noted elsewhere rather than being a virtue in itself.

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 destructive 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description should clarify how the target is identified and what the effect of removal is. None of that is present, leaving the definition incomplete despite the annotations covering the safety hint.

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 scope, aspect, project, and workdir. The description only hints that 'one' requirement is targeted, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 phrase '删掉一条风格要求' states a specific verb (delete) and resource (a style requirement), so the agent understands the operation. However, it does not differentiate itself from its obvious siblings resource_style_list and resource_style_add, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus resource_style_add/list, nor any prerequisites or exclusion conditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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