generate_chapters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: the [Searchable Subject] + [Non-Spoiling Outcome Category] formula, the guaranteed 00:00 first chapter, and the spoiler guard driven by spoilerPolicy. It omits whether the tool is read-only, how transcript sources are prioritized, and what the response contains, so the disclosure is partial rather than complete.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the title formula, then the timestamp and spoiler rules. Some jargon ("reveal-type titles", "curiosity categories") is unexplained but does not bloat the text.

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 nested-config generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a partial picture of the output (formula, first chapter at 00:00) but never states the return shape (e.g., list of titled timestamps) or failure modes for missing/invalid transcripts.

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 only 33% and the parameters are nested. The description only reinforces spoilerPolicy (already documented in the schema) and does not clarify how filePath, youtubeUrl, and rawTranscript are selected or prioritized, nor what minChapterDurationSec and targetDurationSec do to the output.

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?

States a specific verb (generate) and resource (YouTube chapters) with a clear qualifier (non-spoiling, from a transcript). It is distinctly different from siblings like extract_shorts_hooks and generate_seo_metadata, though it never names them explicitly.

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 explains the output formula but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as extract_shorts_hooks, nor any prerequisites (e.g., transcript must have timestamps). Usage is only inferable from the name.

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