ui_override

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, consistent with 'rewrite'. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the previous view content is discarded, whether the view must already exist, or what happens to unset fields. No contradiction, but also no added behavioral context.

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 short sentence with zero filler, front-loaded on the action. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than well-tuned brevity.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description is too thin: no permissions, no reversibility, no idempotency, no effect on rendering. It leaves the agent guessing about consequences of an override.

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 five parameters (note, title, project, view_id, workdir) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or default information beyond it, so the baseline 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?

States a clear verb+resource: '改写' (rewrite) an interaction-layer view's content, which matches the tool name ui_override. It is specific enough for an agent to know what it does, but it draws no boundary against siblings like ui_render, ui_hide, ui_clear, or ui_views.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. an existing view_id), and no mention of any alternative sibling tool. The agent must infer from the name alone when overriding is appropriate versus rendering or clearing.

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