Creates a new chapter file for a specified book, automatically assigning the next chapter number unless overridden. Optionally sets the chapter title and initial content to start writing immediately.
为某部作品创建新章节文件（默认自动取下一个章号）。可指定标题与初始正文。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book | Yes | 书名。 | |
| root | No | 章节库根目录。 | |
| title | No | 可选。章节标题，会写入 Markdown 一级标题。 | |
| chapter | No | 可选。显式指定章号；省略则取现有最大章号 + 1。 | |
| content | No | 可选。章节初始正文。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 two real traits: the default is to auto-assign the next chapter number, and the title is written as a Markdown H1. However, it omits conflict/overwrite behavior, required permissions, and what is returned after creation.
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 action and the notable default, with no filler. Efficient, though it could have used the space to cover the missing behavioral detail.
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 file-creating mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the happy path (book, root, optional title/content, auto chapter number) but says nothing about overwrite/conflict handling or the return value, leaving an agent to guess on edge cases.
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 the baseline is 3. The description's mention of title and initial content merely repeats what the schema already documents for the title and content properties, adding no syntax or format detail beyond structured fields.
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 and resource: creating a new chapter file for a given work, with the auto-numbering default noted. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling novel_chapters (which lists/reads chapters), though the description does not explicitly name any sibling to contrast with.
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 default chapter-numbering behavior but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives (e.g., when to use novel_chapters vs this tool, or what happens if the chapter already exists). Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.