修改已有作品信息（书名 / 简介 / 主角 / 分类）

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses partial-update semantics ('只覆盖显式传入的字段'), the surprising default that confirm=false performs a read-only screenshot preview, and side effects (re-review / exposure impact on name/summary changes). It omits auth/permission requirements and error behavior.

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 and affected fields, then the critical confirm caveat, then the risk notice. Dense but every sentence earns its place; minor cost from the emoji/bolding emphasis.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the important behavioral ground: partial update, preview-vs-commit, and risky fields. Missing auth requirements and failure modes keep it from full completeness.

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 already 100%, so the schema defines every field (不给＝不改). The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the confirm gate and the re-review consequence of the name/abstract fields, going past the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas.

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 (改/修改) and resource (已有作品的名称/简介/主角名/分类), enumerating exactly which fields are in scope. This clearly differentiates it from sibling writers such as create_book_qimao, update_novel, and set_book_tags.

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 clear context for use: modifying an existing work via the 作品信息页, and explains the confirm=false vs confirm=true branch. It does not explicitly name or exclude the sibling update_novel, so there is a residual ambiguity that keeps it below a 5.

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