chatgpt_new_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It states that a new normal or temporary conversation is created, but does not disclose side effects such as what happens to the current conversation, whether an unsent draft is discarded, whether authentication is required, or what result/confirmation is returned. This is a notable gap for a browser-mutation tool.

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 filler. It names the core action first and then compactly lists the optional configuration dimensions. It could include more usage/behavior context, but its size and structure are 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, a five-parameter mutation tool needs more context than this one-sentence description provides. Missing are what happens to the current conversation, what the tool returns or confirms, and when to prefer this composite tool over the sibling route/select tools. The schema covers parameter syntax but not operational context.

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 all five parameters. The description only restates the categories (mode, model, thinking strength, capability tier, temporary) without adding meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states a specific action ('创建新的...对话') and lists the configurable dimensions: mode, model, thinking level, and capability tier, plus the normal/temporary distinction. It is easy to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like chatgpt_route_new_chat or the select_* tools.

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 '并可同时选择...' implies this is a combined create-and-configure operation, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as chatgpt_route_new_chat followed by individual select_* calls, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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