regloss_chapter_tokens

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: only EU glosses are refreshed, Asian glosses are preserved, non-CJK chapters return 'skipped=true', and the diagnostic fields 'cellsChanged/totalCells' indicate freshness. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with clear sections and a bullet-like list for returns. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more concise (e.g., 'overwrite its stored zip blob in place' is slightly redundant). Still 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?

Given the output schema is described in the text, the definition covers input, behavior, output details, and usage context. It is complete for a specialized glossing tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the two parameters with their types (UUIDs) in the 'Args' section. While it doesn't add constraints beyond the schema, it provides sufficient context for an agent to identify them.

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 re-runs Gemini per-token glossing on CJK-source chapters, distinguishes between refreshing EU glosses and preserving Asian glosses, and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool 'create_chapter_from_marks' for fixing Asian glosses.

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?

It explicitly states when to use (after a Gemini prompt fix) and when not to (for bad Asian glosses, use 'create_chapter_from_marks' instead). Provides an alternative tool, leaving no ambiguity.

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