Append Scene to Chapter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait: appending to the end without losing previous content, which is useful for a mutation tool. It does not cover permissions, missing-chapter behavior, response format, or other side effects, so it remains incomplete.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the append action and the non-destructive guarantee.

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 a simple four-parameter append tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain edge cases such as a missing chapter or what the tool returns, which would help an agent invoke it confidently.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add syntax, format, or usage details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb (nối thêm), resource (phân cảnh), and target location (cuối chương truyện hiện có), with the added constraint that prior content is preserved. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling story_write_chapter.

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 phrase 'vào cuối chương truyện hiện có' implies the tool is for appending to an existing chapter without replacing it, which hints at when to use it. However, it gives no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites such as what happens if the chapter does not exist.

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