Write or Update Chapter Draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two meaningful behaviors beyond the schema: an automatic safe snapshot backup before overwriting an existing chapter, and progress recording ('ghi nhận tiến độ viết'). It does not state what the tool returns (file path, snapshot id, progress delta), whether overwrites are irreversible, or any failure modes.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the destination path stated first and the side effects (snapshot, progress) following. Nothing can be removed without losing 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 a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers destination and side effects but omits the return value and any overwrite/error semantics. Those gaps matter more here precisely because structured fields supply no safety or return information.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning by showing how arc and chapter compose into the output path template, and it explains autoSnapshot's real effect (backup before overwrite) rather than just restating the flag. The remaining 'title' parameter and the shape of 'content' gain nothing extra.

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 pair (lưu/cập nhật = save/update) and a concrete resource (chapter content written to manuscript/<arc>/<chapter>.md), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling story_append_scene, which also mutates chapter text, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'nếu sửa chương cũ' (if editing an existing chapter) implies the create-vs-update condition, which is useful. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of story_append_scene, story_snapshot, or story_rollback, which are the closest overlapping siblings.

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