start_chapter

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Only states the state transition; does not disclose side effects, permissions, idempotency, or behavior if chapter is already in DRAFT state.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes the key state transition. No unnecessary words.

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 the simple nature of the tool (one param, state transition), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about the output schema (though present), error conditions, and idempotency, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 0%, but the single parameter 'chapter_num' is self-explanatory due to the context 'a chapter'. Description adds no extra semantics (e.g., valid range or format) beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Open drafting') and the specific resource ('a chapter'), and explicitly defines the state transition (NOT_STARTED → DRAFT). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'approve_chapter' or 'diff_chapter'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'approve_chapter' or 'request_revision'. No mention of preconditions (e.g., chapter must be in NOT_STARTED state) or exclusions.

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