add_chapter

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It indicates creation ('register') but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, state requirements, or whether it updates existing outlines. The absence of such information impairs an agent's ability to assess consequences.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is too terse and lacks substance, earning a middle score. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices adequacy for brevity.

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?

Given that the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what a chapter outline entails, how it integrates with the book project, or what the output contains. More context is needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no explanations for parameters like chapter_num, title, or target_words. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to provide any additional context, such as units for target_words or constraints on chapter_num.

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 'Register a chapter outline' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action and object. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_character and add_location, which deal with different entities. However, 'register' could be slightly ambiguous without context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist for adding other elements, but there is no comparative advice or prerequisites mentioned. The description is silent on context of use.

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