switch_novel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explicitly reveals the key side effect: the novel selection persists and affects subsequent publish and data-query operations until another switch. It does not mention return values or failure behavior, but the important stateful behavior is transparent.

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 compact sentence: the action is front-loaded, the lookup hint is in a parenthetical, and the persistence behavior is stated with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the prerequisite workflow, and the persistent side effect. An agent has enough information to decide when to invoke it and what to pass. Omitted return/error details are not necessary for correct selection and invocation at this complexity level.

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 already describes book_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing how to obtain book_id via list_novels and by linking the parameter to the persistent current-novel state. This is beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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 opens with a specific verb ('切换', switch) and a specific resource ('当前要操作的小说', the current target novel), and then defines the consequential behavior: subsequent publishing and data queries operate on this novel until switched again. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_novels and get_current_novel, which inspect or list rather than change state.

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?

The description gives a clear prerequisite: call list_novels first to obtain the book_id. It also explains when the switch matters by stating that later publishing and data queries default to the newly selected novel, which is useful usage context. It does not explicitly say when not to use the tool, but for a simple state-switching tool the guidance is sufficient.

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