Record the chapter where an AI co-reading partner stops in a shared book, maintaining companion progress without altering the user's actual reading progress.
记录 AI 共读伙伴读到哪一章（共读进度；不影响用户真实进度）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book_id | Yes | ||
| chapter_idx | No | ||
| chapter_uid | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful trait: the operation does not affect the user's real progress. However, it does not mention whether repeated calls overwrite existing co-reading progress, permissions, or other side effects.
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 efficient sentence that fronts the core action and then adds a critical scoping clarification in parentheses. Every word earns its place, and it is immediately clear what the tool does.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete as an invocation guide. The parameter semantics are unclear, especially the presence of both chapter_uid and chapter_idx with a default empty value. An agent would need to infer the identifier roles from parameter names alone, which is risky.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but barely does. It implies a chapter is specified via '读到哪一章', but it does not explain book_id, chapter_uid, or the optional chapter_idx or how they relate. This is inadequate for correctly populating all 3 parameters.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: '记录 AI 共读伙伴读到哪一章' states that it records the co-reading partner's chapter progress. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from user progress tools with '不影响用户真实进度', which separates it from siblings like add_bookmark and get_progress.
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 implies when to use the tool: whenever the AI co-reading partner's progress needs to be saved. It does not name alternative tools or provide any explicit when-not-to-use guidance, aside from hinting that this is separate from the user's real progress.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.