batch_upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses defaults (dry_run=true, mode=draft, interval 2000ms), rate-limiting protection, continue_on_error semantics, and that publish puts chapters into an unmodifiable review state. It stops short of describing the actual return payload for a non-dry-run upload.

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?

Front-loads the core identity with '(核心工具)', then enumerates source types and the dry-run gate in a compact progression. Dense but every clause carries operational meaning; slightly long, though nothing is obviously redundant.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers safety (dry-run first, auth failure aborts, rate limiting) and the key defaults. It could say a bit more about what a real upload returns, but it is sufficient to invoke 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 already 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real value by explaining the three source layouts, how range and volume_map are used (including unmapped-volume fallback to volume_id/default), and the draft-vs-publish consequence of mode.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (批量上传章节) and immediately distinguishes itself from the single-chapter sibling by emphasizing batch scope and the three accepted source layouts. An agent can tell this apart from upload_chapter without inspecting schemas.

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?

Clearly prescribes the workflow: dry_run=true first to preview the plan, then dry_run=false to actually upload; mode=draft by default, publish only when ready for review. It does not explicitly name upload_chapter as the alternative for a single chapter, leaving that inference to the 'batch' framing.

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