Update Project Pacing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'update parameters' with no mention of side effects, whether all fields are replaced or only provided ones, required permissions, or return values.

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, short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and compact, using the minimal words possible to convey the basic action.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too sparse. It fails to provide essential context such as parameter interactions, expectations about response data, or any validation behavior, making the tool largely unusable without external documentation.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of their meanings. Common terms like 'hook_on' or 'breather_every_n_chapters' remain ambiguous, making it impossible for an agent to set them correctly.

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 '更新项目节奏参数' (translated: 'update project pacing parameters') essentially restates the tool name 'update_project_pacing' without adding specificity. It does not list which parameters are involved or how this differs from sibling tools like update_chapter or update_scene.

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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that should trigger its use, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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