新增小说章节

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 and does so well: it warns that the editor auto-saves while typing (a real destructive-risk disclosure), states that confirm=false is read-only, and explains that content can come from content/file_path/article_id with article_id taking priority. This is exactly the safety-relevant context an agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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?

Front-loads the core action and inputs in sentence one, then the content sources, then the confirm warning. Dense but each clause earns its place; the emoji and bolding aid scanning rather than padding.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations; the description covers the risky behaviors, input sources and publishing mode. It does not mention auth prerequisites (login_qimao/set_qimao_cookies) or rate/pagination concerns, but as a fire-and-report action tool it is largely complete.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds usable meaning: the content/file_path/article_id triple is framed as a '三选一' choice with priority, and confirm/scheduled_time are tied to concrete behaviors. This goes modestly beyond the per-parameter schema text.

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 up front ('向指定书籍新增一个章节') and enumerates the inputs needed (章节序号 + 标题 + 正文). An agent can immediately separate this from list_chapters_qimao, update_chapter_qimao or delete_chapter_qimao without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly explains the two operating modes: confirm=false '只打开页面读现状 + 截图，绝不填充' versus confirm=true '才填入并提交'. This is precisely the when/when-not guidance an agent needs to avoid an unintended publish. The scheduled_time publishing path is also called out.

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