write_chapter

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

Annotations already show non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds atomic-write behavior and the non-blocking validate-after-write behavior, which provide meaningful operational context beyond annotations. No contradiction found.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and atomicity, followed by optional validation behavior. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 complete schema coverage, annotations, and moderate complexity, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. It explains the write target and validation behavior, though it does not describe the normal return value; this is acceptable in the absence of an output schema.

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. The description adds meaning by specifying that content is written to text.md and that validate=true triggers an immediate, non-blocking compliance check, enriching the parameter semantics 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?

Description clearly states the specific action ('将正文写入指定故事') and the target artifact ('原子写入 text.md'), distinguishing it from sibling tools such as read_chapter, edit_config, and validate. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. It gives useful guidance for the validate flag (non-blocking compliance check), but no comparison with sibling tools or clear when-to-use context.

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