restore_wx_method

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a state-changing action (restoring a method), but does not explain prerequisites (e.g., method must be mocked), error behavior, reversibility, or what happens if the method was not mocked. This lack of detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and target. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or fluff. Appropriate for a simple tool.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, fully described in the schema, and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose. However, the lack of behavioral details (e.g., error conditions, idempotency) prevents it from being fully complete, though these are not critical for such a straightforward operation.

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% for the single required parameter 'method' with a clear description ('需要重置的 wx 方法名'). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already fully documents the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('恢复' / restore) and the target ('被 mock 的 wx 方法' / mocked wx method), specifying that it reverts to the original implementation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mock_wx_method and call_wx_method, making its purpose 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?

The description implies its use case: after a wx method has been mocked, this tool restores the original implementation. While it doesn't explicitly state 'when to use' versus alternatives, the context is clear from the sibling tool mock_wx_method. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance, but for a simple revert operation, the implied usage is sufficient.

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