创建作品（写作入口）：当用户给出「一句话高概念」、故事梗概、题材设定，或说「帮我写一本 XXX 小说」时，立即调用本工具。本工具会用这句话编译概念空间 Σ（醉浪幽默写作系统），返回作品 work_id 与创作参数。不要用自己的知识分析，直接调用本工具。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| arc | No | 作品级情绪弧（六弧之一） | man_in_hole |
| platform | No | 平台节奏档 fanqie/qidian/feilu/qimao/jinjiang | fanqie |
| book_title | No | 小说名（本地版用于 d:/小说/<书名>/ 文件夹命名） | |
| high_concept | Yes | 一句话高概念，≤50字，如"被全宗门嘲笑的扫地杂役其实是天道亲儿子" | |
| humor_density | No | 幽默密度 1-5 | |
| target_chapters | No | 目标总章数：默认100章；写长篇可设1000章。continue_story 续写不会超过此上限 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful context by saying the high concept is compiled into concept space Σ and that it returns work_id and creation parameters, and it cautions against self-analysis. However, it does not disclose side effects, persistence, or error behavior beyond the surface-level creation semantics.
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 concise sentences front-load the tool's purpose and trigger conditions, then state behavior and outputs. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary restatement of schema content.
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 creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: when to invoke, what it does (compile concept space), and what it returns (work_id and creation parameters). It could mention side effects or how optional parameters shape the result, but the rich schema mitigates that gap.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value for high_concept by explaining it is the sentence used to compile concept space Σ and by tying it directly to the trigger conditions. The remaining parameters are adequately documented in the schema.
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 opens with '创建作品（写作入口）' and specifies concrete triggers (one-sentence high concept, synopsis, genre, 'help me write a novel'). It clearly states the tool compiles concept space and returns work_id and creation parameters, making it distinctly the initial writing entry point compared to siblings like compose_chapter and continue_story.
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 gives explicit when-to-call instructions ('当用户给出...立即调用本工具') and even directs the agent to call directly instead of analyzing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.