取消管理预览

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false; the description reinforces this by saying skill files are not modified, so the agent knows only the pending preview is invalidated. It still does not say what happens to the token afterward or how it behaves with an expired/unknown token.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and scoped with the non-effect clause. No wasted wording.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive cancel tool with no output schema this is nearly adequate: the action and its non-effect are clear. Missing is any statement of the token's role and the outcome of cancellation, which the bare schema does not supply.

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 single required 'token' parameter is documented nowhere; the description only implies a preview exists to be invalidated. It never says the token is the preview token or what happens on an unknown token, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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+resource: invalidating a not-yet-executed archive or restore preview, and explicitly notes it does not modify skill files. The '尚未执行的' qualifier implicitly separates it from execute_skill_plan, though no sibling is named.

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 phrase '尚未执行的归档或恢复预览' implies the condition for use (a preview exists but has not been executed), which is enough to infer the scenario. However, it never names execute_skill_plan as the alternative or states what to do when no preview is pending.

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