edit_chapter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the mutation profile. The description adds one genuinely useful non-annotation fact: the call spends ElevenLabs credits, a cost implication. It still omits what happens to existing content, whether name/content are full replacements, and any auth requirements.

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 a single short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally sound. But for a four-parameter mutation tool the terseness crosses into under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, 50% schema coverage, and undocumented nested content, the description should do considerably more. It leaves the agent without knowledge of which fields are editable, how content is applied, or the response shape.

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 50%: project_id and chapter_id are documented, but name and content (a nested blocks object) are not. The description adds no meaning for any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented half, including the important question of whether content replaces or merges.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Update Chapter'), so an agent knows it mutates a chapter object. However it never says which fields can be changed (name/content) and does not distinguish itself from siblings like edit_project_content, update_document_route, or add_chapter. Purpose is identifiable but not differentiated.

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 this tool versus alternatives such as edit_project_content, add_chapter, or convert_chapter_endpoint. No prerequisites, no conditions, no exclusions are given. The agent must infer applicability 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.