执行项目资源整理

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add behavioral context, which it does: assets are moved via AssetDB to preserve UUID, the operation rejects when changes are detected (revision check tied to expectedRevision), and partial failures return recovery records. This gives the agent meaningful error-handling and mutation semantics beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the behavioral caveats are packed efficiently. It is appropriately sized, though the terseness contributes to the parameter-semantics gap.

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?

With 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, this tool needs substantial description to be callable correctly. The description covers the core contract (preserve planHash/scope, reject on drift, return recovery records) but omits what urls and recursive control, how the recovery record is structured, and what instanceId/runtimeInstanceId/operationId mean. An agent would have to guess at several parameters.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining 9 parameters, but it only touches on two: scopeUrl/recursive ('保留预览范围') and planHash. The '遇到变化拒绝' clause hints at expectedRevision, but urls, recursive, instanceId, operationId, runtimeInstanceId, and projectId are left unexplained in both the schema and description. This is a significant gap.

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 ('执行'/execute) and resource (reviewed asset organization plan), and the phrase '已审查计划' (reviewed plan) implies this is the execution step following cocos_assets_organize_plan. It distinguishes itself from the planning sibling but doesn't explicitly name it or other execute-type siblings like cocos_workflow_execute, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description implies usage context — it must be called with a preserved preview scope and planHash, and it rejects when the workspace has drifted ('遇到变化拒绝'), which signals it is meant for applying a pre-validated plan. However, it never names alternative tools or states when NOT to use it, leaving the agent to infer the boundary with cocos_assets_organize_plan and cocos_workflow_execute.

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