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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: existing chapters are revised, old versions are auto-archived and rollback-able, and a valid api_key is required. This goes well beyond a simple 'write' statement, though it doesn't detail failure modes or side effects.

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 succinct sentence that front-loads the core action and behavior. Every part contributes; no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits return/confirmation behavior, error conditions, and explanations for most parameters. The tool's core upsert behavior is covered, but a caller would still have to guess at several input semantics.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for api_key (required, though schema marks it optional) and implies number selects the target chapter, but it does not explain novel_id, title, content, note, or summary. This leaves most parameters effectively undocumented.

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 identifies a specific action (写入/write) on a specific resource (指定章节/chapter with given number). It also defines the upsert behavior: revise if existing, create if missing, which differentiates it from siblings like append_chapter or create_novel.

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?

It gives concrete context on when the tool is appropriate: when you need to write to a specified chapter number, it will update or create as needed. It also states a prerequisite (需要 api_key). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, hence not a 5.

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