resource_term_pending_adopt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds value beyond that by specifying what is actually mutated (old replaced by new), that an audit entry is recorded, that the item leaves the queue, and that model identities are rejected - concrete behavioral context the annotations do not carry.

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 sentence with the action bolded and front-loaded, followed immediately by the concrete effects. Every clause (swap, log, dequeue, identity restriction) earns its place with no filler.

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 one-shot mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers effects, side effects, and an auth constraint adequately. It omits edge behavior (what happens on an unknown/already-adopted id, reversibility), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents by/id/why/project/workdir individually. The description only loosely ties into these by mentioning the changelog (why) and the approval role, adding marginal meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (adopt/采用) applied to a specific resource (一条待审更正 - a pending correction) and enumerates the full effect chain: swap old for new, write a changelog entry, remove from queue. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling resource_term_pending_drop, which discards rather than applies the proposal.

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 parenthetical '(模型身份会被拒)' signals a real precondition - the caller identity matters and model/agent identities are refused - which is genuine usage guidance. However it never says when to prefer this over resource_term_pending_drop or how to handle the rejected-identity path, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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