create_story

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the concrete side effects (creating a folder, config.json, and text.md), which is useful. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects like overwriting existing files, permissions required, or failure modes. Given the lack of annotations, more detail would be expected, but the description does provide some transparency.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('create a new story') and follows with the key artifacts created. There is zero wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for a create operation with well-documented parameters.

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?

The description is brief but covers the essential action and resulting files. However, with 7 parameters and no output schema, it might benefit from explaining how parameters map to the created files (e.g., title used for folder name) or typical return values. The schema covers parameter descriptions, but the tool's overall behavior and outcomes are only partially described. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

The input schema fully describes all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra information about parameters beyond what the schema already states. It mentions 'draft' in relation to content, but that is already indicated in the schema as 'initial draft' (初始正文). Therefore, it does not enhance parameter understanding beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a new story, with a specific verb ('创建' meaning create) and resource (story). It elaborates on what constitutes a story (folder + config.json + text.md draft), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_chapter or write_chapter. It is unambiguous and specific.

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 description implies this tool is for creating new stories, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or when another tool would be more appropriate. While the name and context make it clear, explicit guidance is absent, so it only meets the baseline of implied usage.

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