build_chapter_acceptance_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'read-only', indicating non-destructive behavior, and outlines planned outputs (review, gates, commands). However, it does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, or error conditions, leaving gaps in transparency for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 sentence that packs significant detail (read-only, post-acceptance, components). It is efficiently structured with minimal redundancy, though slightly verbose in listing elements. Overall, concise for the information conveyed.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return format, how to use the parameters, or preconditions. For a tool generating a plan, the agent lacks understanding of what the output contains or how to invoke it correctly.

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 description provides no explanation for any of the 7 parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds no value. Parameters like 'handoff_chapter', 'include_context', and 'author_confirmation' remain unexplained, requiring the agent to infer from names alone.

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 the tool builds a 'read-only post-acceptance write plan for one draft chapter' with specific components. The verb 'build' and resource are well-defined, and the listing of included elements (pre-write review, gates, etc.) distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_chapter_delivery_packet or build_chapter_revision_comparison.

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 implies usage is after acceptance ('post-acceptance'), but does not provide explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools. There are many 'build_' siblings, yet no guidance on choosing this one, leaving the agent without clear context selection criteria.

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