publish_chapter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the two content modes, auto-extraction behavior, and immediate vs scheduled publishing, which is helpful. However, it does not mention side effects such as overwriting, authentication requirements, or what the response contains.

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 one dense, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then cleanly lays out the alternatives and scheduling behavior. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential call contract: the required content-mode combos, optional book routing, author_speak, and scheduling. Missing return-value and error-case details are notable but do not prevent an agent from invoking the tool correctly.

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 100%, which gives a baseline of 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining the one-of-two content mode relationship, how file+chapter_no work together, and how title is auto-extracted. It also gives an ISO time example for publish_time.

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 specific action (publish or schedule-publish a chapter) and a specific resource (a chapter in the current or specified novel). It clearly distinguishes the tool from read-only siblings like list_chapters and get_novel_stats.

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?

It clearly explains when to use the tool and gives explicit internal alternatives: title+content vs file+chapter_no. It does not explicitly say when to prefer sibling tools, but the read/write boundary between publishing and listing or stats tools is self-evident.

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