context_preview_remove

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the description's claim that only the preview is affected and '上游 Skill 保持原位' (the upstream Skill remains in place). This adds useful non-destructive context beyond the annotation and clarifies that the removal does not propagate upstream.

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 compact sentence with no filler and places the core action first. Its brevity is a strength, although it may be too terse to cover all necessary semantics.

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 nested baseline object, a required plugin, and zero schema description coverage, the description is incomplete for confident invocation. It lacks parameter guidance, usage context, and clarity about what '配套说明' refers to, despite having an output schema.

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 must compensate. It references the 'baseline' concept ('原始读取基线') and indirectly the plugin/Skill relationship, but it does not explain the scope parameter or the structure/role of the nested baseline object.

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 a specific action, '移出配套说明' (remove companion explanation) applied to a preview context, and clarifies that the upstream Skill is left in place. This gives a recognizable resource and effect, though '配套说明' is somewhat vague and not explicitly contrasted with sibling preview tools.

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 a preview-removal scenario but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus context_preview, context_apply, or document_preview_remove. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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