wattpad_create_part

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

Annotations only indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and no idempotency/destructiveness. The description goes further by disclosing that the response contains the id and initial text_hash, and that the part does not need to be re-read before the first save. It also notes the dry_run behavior in the Returns section.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and useful supplementary notes after. It is slightly redundant because the Returns section repeats the id/text_hash detail already mentioned, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 100% parameter coverage, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential call behavior: what is created, what the response provides, and how dry_run affects it. It is not exhaustive about auth/errors, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents story_id, title, text, and dry_run. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema; its text_hash note concerns the response, not input parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, unambiguous statement: 'Crea un capitulo en borrador dentro de una historia existente.' It identifies the verb (crear), the resource (capitulo/part), and the scope (dentro de una historia existente, as a draft). This also separates it from siblings such as wattpad_create_story, wattpad_update_part, and wattpad_publish_part.

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 main sentence defines the clear context for use: creating a draft chapter inside an existing story. It does not, however, explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use it, so it falls short of a 5; there are no misleading usage notes.

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