新建短故事（+保存草稿）

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

无 annotation，描述提供了重要行为细节：自动创建草稿 item 并返回 item_id、字数限制、正文来源的多选一机制，以及 confirm 参数对是否持久化的控制。但未说明失败情形、权限要求或网络副作用等。

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?

信息密度高，前载核心目的和关键行为，但句子较长且混用中英文标点，略显冗长。

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?

对于无 annotation、无输出模式的创建类工具，描述覆盖了核心操作、字数约束、正文指定方式及 confirm 语义，足以指导正确调用。但缺少错误处理、认证需求等边界情况说明。

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 覆盖率 100%，参数含义已由 schema 提供。描述补充了正文三选一的优先级（content/file_path/article_id）以及 confirm 的行为影响，但未解释其他参数如 headless、use_ai 等的具体含义，仅重复 schema 信息。

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?

描述明确说明该工具新建短故事，并可选保存草稿，动词+资源清晰。同时通过提及自动生成草稿 item 和返回 item_id，将其与 create_novel_tomato 等兄弟工具区分开来。

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?

描述了何时实际保存草稿（confirm=true）与仅填表不保存（默认 confirm=false），但未明确提及何时应选择此工具而非其他创建工具，也未说明使用该工具的前置条件（如登录要求）。

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