resource_term_import

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered structurally. The description adds real value by disclosing that '每一步都进变更日志' (every step is recorded in the change log), but it does not explain what happens to existing entries absent from the file or whether the change is reversible.

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 the bolded '整份换上' leading, so the core semantic is immediately visible. It is dense with em-dash clauses but no sentence is wasted; slightly crowded but effective.

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 bulk-replace tool the description conveys the replacement semantics and change-log behavior, and the schema fully covers the parameters including dry_run. It still omits the disposition of removed/absent entries and any irreversibility warning, which matter for a destructiveHint=true operation.

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% and all six parameters are documented in the schema (by/why/file/dry_run/project/workdir), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond noting the JSONL shape, which is already in the file param description.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it makes the termbook end up exactly matching the given JSONL lines, explicitly covering splitting, merging, and batch renaming in one pass. This differentiates it from single-entry siblings like resource_term_add/resource_term_remove, though it never names a sibling outright.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: '整份换上' (whole replacement) and '一次做完' (all done in one shot) suggest this is the bulk alternative to doing splits/merges/renames individually. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. resource_term_add), leaving routing to inference.

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