resource_term_candidates

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

With destructiveHint=false/readOnlyHint=false given, the description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that it mutates existing translation names (queued for review), that new content is written unreviewed, and critically that it is idempotent ('重复调用不重复产行'). Idempotency is a key trait annotations do not convey.

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 dense, front-loaded line with no filler; the core action leads and routing/idempotency details follow. The heavy parenthetical packs several facts but each 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the return shape ('one entity per line') and the two side-effect paths plus idempotency. Combined with 100% schema coverage, this is largely complete for a mutation tool.

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 four parameters (project, workdir, language, min_scenes) are already documented in the schema, including the note that language is only recorded in the return. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or defaults beyond that 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?

States a specific verb+resource: '从场摘要抽实体' (extract entities from scene summaries), which is clearly distinct from siblings like resource_term_add or resource_harvest. An agent can identify what it produces, though the dense parenthetical bundles routing behavior that muddies the core purpose slightly.

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?

The description explains the internal routing rules (new names/new facts appended unreviewed; changes to existing translations go to the pending queue), which implies usage context but never states when to call this vs alternatives like resource_harvest or resource_term_propose. No explicit exclusions or alternative-routing guidance.

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