sx_un_submit

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

The description discloses a key behavior: '默认被只读守卫拒绝' states that by default the read-only guard rejects this operation. This is beyond the schema and useful for the agent. However, without annotations, it doesn't describe what happens on success, side effects, or how to override the guard.

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?

The description is very concise, front-loading the core action with no fluff. It consists of two short phrases. However, it omits important details, but for what it covers, the structure is efficient.

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?

Given it's a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks essential context: what the parameters refer to, what a successful unsubmit does, and what constraints apply beyond the read-only guard. It is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly in a real scenario.

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 0%, and the description does not mention form_id or data_id at all. The agent must infer meaning solely from the parameter names, which is ambiguous without context. The description provides no additional semantics to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the action clearly: '撤销提交' means undo submission, and '官方 unSubmit' confirms it is the official unsubmit operation. This differentiates it from siblings like sx_submit (submit) and sx_un_audit (un-audit). However, it doesn't explicitly describe the context (undoing a previously submitted form/data pair) beyond the action itself.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sx_submit or sx_un_audit. No prerequisite is mentioned (e.g., the submission must exist or be in a submitted state). The note about the read-only guard is a behavioral constraint, not usage context.

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