upload_chapter_from_zip

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

Without annotations, the description conveys key behaviors: it's a 'break-glass' write operation, uses POST for creation and PUT for update when 'chapter_id' is provided. While it doesn't address rate limits, authentication, or side effects, it gives sufficient behavioral context for a manual upload tool.

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 a clear intent header, usage note, and parameter list. While it is somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value. It front-loads the critical 'break-glass' caveat and use-case restriction.

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 9 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers input semantics thoroughly. It does not explain output/return values, but an output schema exists. The description could mention error behavior or success confirmation, but it's largely sufficient for 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in detail: providing Unix-style path examples, localization for 'title', and valid enum hint for 'level' (B1|B2). This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema titles.

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's purpose: uploading a manually-assembled chapter zip via POST/PUT. It identifies the resource ('chapters/from-audio') and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'create_chapter_from_marks', making selection unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool ('only when create_chapter_from_marks isn't right') and provides a concrete example (hand-patched translations + alignments). It also clarifies the POST/PUT behavior based on 'chapter_id', offering clear context for invocation.

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