novel_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a 22-parameter mutation tool. It says nothing about delete being destructive/irreversible, permission or root-path requirements, whether scan/detect are expensive or non-idempotent, or what these operations return – a significant gap for a tool that writes and deletes settings.

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?

A single dense parenthetical sentence front-loads the resource, tables, and actions with no filler. It is compact and scannable, though the nested-clause format is slightly harder to parse than a short sentence or two.

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 22-param tool the 100%-covered schema does the heavy lifting and there is no output schema to explain, so return values need not be described. What is missing is behavioral context (destructive delete, scan/detect cost, root/chapter prerequisites) that the schema cannot convey.

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%, and the schema itself documents action enums, category 专用 fields, and per-table semantics in detail. The description's parenthetical mapping of the five tables adds a little framing but no syntax beyond what the schema already supplies, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 names a specific resource (设定管理) and enumerates the five tables plus the full action set (list/add/update/delete/scan/detect), so an agent knows exactly what domain it operates on. It does not, however, differentiate itself from any sibling like novel_keywords or novel_style_check, so the 4-tier is appropriate.

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 clarifies that the CRUD-style actions are grouped by category and that detect is worldview-specific and automatic, which implies usage. But it never states when to reach for this tool versus sibling tools (e.g., novel_keywords for keyword work) or any prerequisites, so guidance is only implied.

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