add_chapter

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true. The description does add one genuinely useful trait beyond them: that the call consumes ElevenLabs credits, which matters for a billable creation call. It stops short of explaining required permissions, side effects, or what happens on duplicate names.

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?

It is very short and front-loads the action, but the single run-on fragment is grammatically broken, which costs clarity rather than saving space. The terseness here reflects under-specification, not disciplined concision.

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 billable creation tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum state where the chapter is created and what the response contains. Instead it omits when-to-use, the undocumented from_url parameter, and any notion of the created chapter's identity or subsequent workflow.

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 only 67%, and 'from_url' is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description contributes nothing about project_id, name, or how from_url alters behavior, so it 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?

The fragment 'Create Chapter' does name a specific verb and resource, but the sentence is malformed ('Create Chapter Spends ElevenLabs credits'), blurring whether it is one statement or two. It makes no attempt to distinguish this from siblings like edit_chapter, delete_chapter_endpoint, or add_project.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use add_chapter versus edit_chapter, add_project, or convert_chapter_endpoint, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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