delete_chapter_qimaoDeletes a specific chapter from a Qimao book. Runs in preview mode with screenshots by default; set confirm=true to execute the permanent removal.
删除指定章节（破坏性）。默认 confirm=false 只预览 + 截图；confirm=true 才真正删除。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book_id | Yes | 七猫书 ID（book_id） | |
| confirm | No | 是否真正删除，默认 false | |
| headless | No | 是否无头运行，默认 true | |
| chapter_id | Yes | 要删除的章节 ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 flags the operation as destructive ('破坏性'), discloses that the default confirm=false only previews plus screenshots, and that confirm=true performs the actual deletion. It omits whether deletion is reversible or what happens to chapter content, but the safe-default preview mechanism is a genuinely valuable disclosure.
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 tight sentences with the destructive warning front-loaded ahead of the confirm semantics. No filler, and the most safety-critical information comes first.
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 4-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, danger level, and the preview-vs-execute switch adequately. It could add irreversibility or auth context, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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 goes beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of confirm=false (preview + screenshot), which the schema only labels as '是否真正删除'. This adds real meaning to the confirm parameter, though headless is left entirely to 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('删除指定章节' / delete the specified chapter), which cleanly separates it from siblings like update_chapter_qimao, add_chapter_qimao, and delete_article. An agent can identify the operation 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?
The two-mode confirm behavior implies when the tool is safe to call, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives such as update_chapter_qimao, nor prerequisites (auth, book ownership). Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.