create_chapter

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action but omits critical details such as idempotency, error behavior (e.g., duplicate names), or side effects (e.g., updating parent book timestamps). This is insufficient.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but the brevity leaves gaps in clarity. A score of 3 acknowledges conciseness while penalizing lack of substance.

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 tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain return behavior or confirmation messages. It only states the creation, ignoring how the new chapter is identified or returned. This is completely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's full effect.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional context about parameter relationships (e.g., book_id vs. book_name) or usage tips. It does not degrade the schema but also does not enhance it.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new chapter'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like create_book or create_page, as all share a similar pattern. A score of 4 reflects clear but undifferentiated purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_page). It does not mention any prerequisites or context such as requiring an existing book. This leaves the agent without criteria for tool selection.

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