upload_chapter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the safe draft default, that publish submits for review, that publish_time schedules publishing, and that file mode auto-parses the title. It omits edge cases such as auth requirements, failure behavior, or what happens if a chapter already exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action comes first, followed by input alternatives and mode behavior. Every sentence contributes useful calling information.

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 eight-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential input modes, defaults, and publish semantics. Remaining gaps, such as auth requirements and error behavior, are minor but prevent a perfect score.

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 the schema documents all eight parameters. The description still adds cross-parameter meaning by explaining the title+content vs. file alternatives, the mode default, and scheduling via 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 verb and resource: upload a single chapter. The word '单章' distinguishes it from the sibling batch_upload, and the two content-input paths make the tool's scope immediately clear.

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 the two valid content modes and the draft-vs-publish behavior, including the safe default. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as batch_upload or update_chapter, so it falls short of full when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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