新增小说章节

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 well: it discloses the multi-step pipeline, the confirm=false dry-run default (a real safety gate against accidental publishing), a typo re-confirmation step, and a final interface review. It omits auth/login requirements and rate/error behavior, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the text is dense with no filler, packing the workflow, body sources, scheduling, and default behavior into one paragraph. The arrow-chain notation is slightly cryptic and could be tightened, but nothing is wasted.

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 an 11-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema multi-step publishing tool, the description covers the workflow, the dry-run gate, body sources, and scheduling well. It still leaves auth prerequisites and post-submission return/error behavior unexplained, which are notable gaps given the sibling login_tomato exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so all 11 parameters including the three body-source options and the confirm/default behaviors are already documented in the schema. The description restates content/file_path/article_id and scheduled_time support but adds little meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: uploading one chapter to a specified book on the 番茄 platform, with the full submission flow spelled out. It is clearly distinguishable in intent from list_chapters_tomato or batch_publish_chapters, but it never explicitly names a sibling to route against, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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 implies usage through the workflow and the critical note that confirm=false only fills the form without submitting, which tells the agent how to dry-run. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs batch_publish_chapters or publish_short_story_tomato, and no prerequisite (e.g. login) guidance, so usage is implied rather than directed.

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