novel_new_chapter

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states that a file is created and that the chapter number defaults to the next one – the latter is already spelled out in the schema. It says nothing about overwrite/conflict behavior if the target chapter file already exists, whether the file is written atomically, what happens when root is omitted, or what the call returns. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The parenthetical default-numbering note is partly redundant with the schema's chapter parameter description, which is the only minor inefficiency.

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?

There are six parameters and no output schema, so the description should clarify the return value (e.g., the created path or chapter number) and conflict handling. It covers the basic create-and-name intent but leaves the agent guessing about the write result and existing-file behavior, which is inadequate for a mutation 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 100%, so every parameter including root and the non-persisted plan field is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes title and content, both of which the schema explains more fully, so it adds essentially no meaning beyond the structured data. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "为某部作品创建新章节文件" (create a new chapter file for a book), which an agent can distinguish from list-style siblings like novel_chapters or novel_read. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase "创建新章节文件" – an agent can infer this is the tool for adding a chapter rather than reading or editing one. There is no when-not guidance, no mention of how it relates to novel_import or novel_chapters, and no prerequisites such as whether the book must already exist.

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