resource_term_pending_drop

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by clarifying the blast radius: the change is rejected from the queue but the underlying book/resource is left untouched, which meaningfully narrows what 'destructive' means here.

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 a tight parenthetical that clarifies scope. Every element earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 low-complexity, single-required-param mutation, the description plus annotations plus fully documented schema cover what an agent needs. It could be slightly stronger by naming the adopt sibling as the alternative path, but nothing essential is missing.

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% (id, project, workdir all documented), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no additional syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (丢弃/discard) and resource (待审更正/pending correction), and adds the crucial scope qualifier that it does not modify the book, only removes the queue entry. It distinguishes itself from the other pending tools (list/adopt) by effect, 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?

Usage is implied: call it to discard a pending correction from the queue. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not contrast with the obvious sibling alternative (resource_term_pending_adopt), leaving the drop-vs-adopt decision to inference.

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