把章节打包成口袋写作(kdwrite)导入 .kd 文件（zip 内含 正文.txt + 作品相关.txt）。标题默认优化为『四大名著』章回体爆款标题（sida 风格，全书去重）。生成后需用户在口袋写作「导入作品 → kd格式」手动导入。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | 标签 | 新作品 |
| author | No | 作者名 | 李紫圣 |
| work_id | Yes | 作品 ID | |
| out_path | No | .kd 输出路径（云端省略时返回 base64 内容） | |
| book_title | No | 书名，默认取作品书名 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully reveals the output format, the automatic title rewriting behavior, and the requirement for manual import. This gives an agent solid expectations beyond a bare 'export' statement.
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 three short sentences, each adding distinct value: what the tool produces, how titles are transformed, and what the user must do afterward. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the deliverable format and the follow-up manual step. It does not describe side effects or error conditions, but for this export function the most decision-relevant context is present.
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%, so the parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds context about the output file and title behavior, but does not go deeper into parameter semantics such as how out_path overrides or how book_title interacts with the default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 specific verb and resource: packaging chapters into an importable .kd file for 口袋写作, with a defined internal structure (正文.txt + 作品相关.txt). It also adds distinguishing behavior (sida-style title optimization), which helps differentiate it from siblings like export_work.
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 usage context: use this tool to generate a kd-format file that the user must manually import into 口袋写作. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as export_work or sync_to_disk, leaving some routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.