unhook

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: the effect ('卸载后游戏行为恢复原状' – game behavior reverts) and the scope rule that an empty hook_id unhooks everything.

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?

Three short sentences, each front-loaded with a distinct fact: what it does, the empty-id scope rule, and the cleanup obligation. Nothing is redundant.

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 single-parameter destructive tool whose annotations already cover safety and idempotency, the description supplies scope, effect, and timing. Only the return/response shape is unaddressed, a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter. It does the essential work: 'hook_id 留空则卸载全部' explains that the optional param's empty/default value triggers a full unhook, which the bare schema (default: "") does not convey.

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+resource: '卸载 Hook' (uninstall a hook), the clear inverse of hook_method/hook_address in the sibling set. An agent can tell it apart without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly naming the install siblings, but the cleanup framing makes intent unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('收尾时务必调用' – must call at teardown) and names an alternative ('或用 close_session'). It does not clarify the relationship between unhook-all and close_session (whether the latter already unhooks), leaving a small ambiguity.

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