批量上传章节

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses rate limiting, sequential ordering, fault tolerance (a single failure does not abort the batch), per-chapter results, and the dry-run behavior that avoids leaving stray drafts. It omits permission/auth requirements and the semantics of mode flags like use_ai and detection.

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 compact sentences, with the core batch behavior front-loaded and the dry-run caveat following. Every clause carries information; slightly dense but efficient.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary workflow and failure handling but leaves several mode parameters (use_ai, detection, headless) unexplained and says nothing about required authentication or setup prerequisites.

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 78% (near the 80% baseline), so the schema documents most parameters. The description clarifies confirm's dry-run behavior and the chapter ordering, but adds no meaning for limit, use_ai, detection, or headless, which are undocumented or only minimally described in the schema.

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: selecting pending-publish chapters from the local manuscript library and uploading them in chapter-number order. It is unambiguous what the tool does, though it never names a sibling (e.g. add_chapter_tomato) to differentiate the batch vs single path explicitly.

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 implied through the confirm=false dry-run note, which tells the agent how to preview safely, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over add_chapter_tomato or the other publish siblings. Nothing is misleading, but the when-not guidance is left to inference.

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