修改本地小说登记 / 创作设定

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses patch semantics (unsupplied fields keep their original value), the *_file indirection for long text, and that the operation is purely local with no backend side effects. It omits what happens if novel_id does not exist, and whether qimao_book_id binding has any remote consequence.

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?

Three dense sentences that front-load the resource and its locality constraint, then the merge semantics, then the file convention. The enumerated field list is long but does useful disambiguation work; only the trailing resource pointer is arguably optional.

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 24-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: locality, merge semantics, and long-text handling via files. It does not describe the returned shape or error behavior on a missing/unknown novel_id.

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 24 parameters, putting this at the baseline 3. The description adds the partial-update rule and the *_file convention, plus a pointer to list_genres for genre keys, but most of it restates what the schema already says field by field.

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 (修改/update) and resource (本地小说登记 data/novels.json), then enumerates the exact field families it touches and explicitly marks the boundary: 纯本地，不改动七猫后台. This cleanly separates it from the sibling update_book_info_qimao, which an agent could otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Provides the key usage context: this edits local metadata and creation settings, does not touch the Qimao backend, and reading is done via the resource qimao://novels. It also states the partial-update contract (只覆盖显式传入的字段). However, it never names a sibling alternative or a when-not-to-use case, leaving the agent to infer the split against update_book_info_qimao.

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