Skip an opened pack

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. While destructiveHint=true already flags destructive behavior, the description does not explain what skipping entails (e.g., pack discarded, irreversible) or whether it requires an opened pack.

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 extremely brief, making it concise in length, but this brevity sacrifices clarity. The single sentence is under-specified and does not earn its place as useful guidance.

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 the destructive annotation and the need to skip an opened pack, the description lacks essential details about consequences, prerequisites, or state management. With no output schema, the description should clarify expected behavior but fails to do so.

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?

The description does not mention the expected_state_token parameter, but schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes it as '最新 state_token；必填'. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 '映射上游 pack {skip:true}' is cryptic and does not clearly state that the tool skips an opened pack. The title provides some clarity, but the description itself lacks a specific verb+resource action and does not distinguish from sibling tools like skip_blind.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about prerequisites (e.g., having an opened pack) or scenarios where skipping is appropriate.

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