revalidate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/destructive nature is conveyed structurally. The description adds genuine context beyond that – the one-directional constraint '只放行，不收紧' (only releases, never tightens) – but it does not say what state is overwritten or which records are touched.

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 no filler; the core action and its directional constraint are packed into one clause with zero waste.

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 state-mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and its one-way behavior but omits what the re-adjudication actually changes (status fields, writeback, block records) and what the agent should expect afterwards, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 both parameters (project, workdir) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, 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 description states a specific verb+resource: re-adjudicating previously blocked translations under current criteria. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not name or differentiate itself from any sibling (e.g. resource_validate, translate), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 only implied: you would reach for this after criteria have changed and you want previously blocked items reconsidered. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative tool named for related re-validation work.

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