新建作品（建书）

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that it drives a real page, that field matching is by label text, that unmatched fields are surfaced in 'missing' rather than silently dropped, and that the default is a non-mutating dry run. It omits auth requirements and whether a successful create is idempotent or reversible.

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 action, then a caveat about label-based matching, then the confirm default — a sensible ordering. Three dense sentences with little waste, though the warning line is slightly verbose.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most important unknowns: dry-run default, submit behavior, and how unmatched fields are reported. It leaves out the login/session prerequisite and the effect of register_local, but the core call contract is clear.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all ten parameters including gender encoding and the confirm default. The description repeats book_name as required and the gender mapping but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (驱动真实建书页填表并提交 / creates a book on the Qimao author backend), and the scope is distinguishable from siblings like update_book_info_qimao, create_short_story_qimao, and list_books_qimao. An agent can tell what this does without opening the 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?

Gives explicit operating context through the confirm flag: confirm=false only opens the page to read status and screenshot, confirm=true actually fills and submits. It does not, however, state when to prefer this tool over siblings (e.g. create_short_story_qimao) or note the login prerequisite implied by login_qimao.

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