Update Chapter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral detail: kind changes do not rebuild existing checklists by default, and rebuild_checklists is optional. This adds value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't disclose other effects like return values, reversibility, or permissions, leaving some gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary function and then adds the important nuance about rebuild behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and a critical default behavior. However, it omits details about return values, potential side effects on existing checklists when updating title only, or any prerequisites. It's adequate but has clear gaps in completeness for safe autonomous 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names title and kind as updatable fields and explains the role of rebuild_checklists in determining checklist rebuilding. It doesn't elaborate on project_id and chapter_id, but they are required identifiers. The description adds some meaning above the schema, but it doesn't fully describe all parameters.

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 that the tool updates chapter title and kind, with a specific resource and fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_scene by targeting chapters. However, it doesn't explicitly mention 'existing' chapter, but that's implicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context or exclusions. The description simply states the function without comparison to siblings.

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