Create chapter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and largely doesn't: it says nothing about permissions, whether creation requires an existing book, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response looks like. The one useful behavioral fact is the non-nesting constraint, which is a real but small contribution for a mutation 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?

Two short sentences, purpose first and the caveat second, with no filler or restated boilerplate. Appropriate size for the tool.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a 50%-documented schema needs more than two lines. Missing prerequisites, side effects, and parameter meaning leave the agent under-informed for a create operation.

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 only 50% (tags and description documented, name and book_id not), so the description is the place to compensate — but it mentions no parameters at all. It only implies via 'in a book' that a book_id is needed; the required name and the tag-replacement semantics go unexplained.

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 ('Create a chapter in a book') and adds a domain fact — chapters group pages and can't be nested — that helps distinguish it from create_page/create_book/create_shelf. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites (e.g. that book_id must reference an existing book) beyond the bare 'you can't nest chapters' constraint. The agent must infer placement from the sibling list.

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