add_book_node

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

With no annotations, description discloses node addition behavior, parent_id handling, kp_id's knowledge graph role, name visibility on exam paper and forbidden words, and return type. Missing error conditions or side effects, but covers key behaviors well.

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?

Three dense sentences with front-loaded action, examples, constraints, and return value. No filler, each sentence adds unique value despite informal notation.

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?

Covers purpose, key parameters, constraints, and return type. Lacks explanation of seq and error handling, but overall sufficient for a moderately complex tool given output schema exists.

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 0%, so description compensates partially. Explains node_type (examples), parent_id (default root), kp_id (optional KG anchor), and name (constraints). Does not explain book_id (required) or seq (default 0), leaving gaps.

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?

Description clearly states '给书加一个目录节点' (add a TOC node to a book), specifies node_type examples, and distinguishes from siblings like add_book_item and get_book_structure via context of adding nodes to the book hierarchy.

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?

Provides practical usage tips (parent_id for root, kp_id optional, name constraints) but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to siblings. No mention of prerequisites or alternatives.

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