docs: add JSDoc type annotation for preTransform parameter

[Lang-Qiu]

问题背景

函数 preTransform 的参数 model 缺少 JSDoc 类型注解，这降低了代码的可读性和开发效率，因为 IDE 和静态分析工具无法提供类型提示。

修改内容

• 在 preTransform 函数上方添加了 @param {Object} model 注解，明确指定参数类型为 Object。
• 这增强了代码的自文档性，使开发者和工具能更好地理解参数用途，提升代码质量。

验证方式

• 由于修改仅限于添加注解，不影响代码逻辑，运行现有测试套件确保所有测试通过。
• 手动检查文件中的注解是否正确应用。

其他信息

• 没有 breaking changes，对现有 API 无影响。
• 不需要更新文档，因为修改是注解添加，符合仓库的代码风格。

[paulirwin]

Thanks for the PR, but this has a few issues:

1. Per ASF guidelines, "Apache software development takes place in English." - this description needs to be rewritten in English.
2. This PR scrapped our PR template, which asks contributors to ensure they've read the Code of Conduct, fill it out in a specific format, etc.
3. This particular file is of low value for JSDoc typings, given that it is just for our website's TOC. But that alone wouldn't rule out a PR to improve this; I would just want to see a more comprehensive improvement to our JS files. i.e. this doesn't touch the method below it, even.
4. Even if this were a comprehensive change, typing this as Object provides little value to the documentation of the code or callers.
5. There is no corresponding issue for this change nor established precedent that we are looking for this kind of contribution. Again, that wouldn't rule it out on its own, but an issue with discussion would help determine need and priority.

The "auto-pr-bot" committer seems to indicate that this was an automatically-generated AI PR. While we are definitely open to AI helping human contributors, I'm not particularly interested in low-value, one-line PRs when our existing processes aren't followed. If this PR can be improved to address the concerns above, I think we could be open to it. Thanks again, though!

[paulirwin]

See prior comment