mm_create_comic_script

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context: supported file formats (.txt/.md with UTF-8/GBK), parameter ranges (max_scenes 1-50), and that the output is an editable JSON script. It does not contradict annotations and clarifies the tool's generative, non-destructive nature.

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 well-structured with a clear opening purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 the tool's complexity (novel-to-script generation), the description covers all key aspects: inputs, parameter constraints, output format, and editability. It lacks details on potential errors, processing time, or side effects, but these are adequately implied by annotations and the presence 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully documents each parameter: novel_path (absolute path with supported extensions and encodings), style (default 日系动漫), and max_scenes (range and default). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: '上传一部小说，自动生成漫剧剧本 JSON' (upload a novel, auto-generate comic script JSON), and specifies the output includes character cards and storyboards. This distinguishes it from siblings like mm_generate_image or mm_start_comic_video, which handle different media generation stages.

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 usage context (adapting a novel into a script for comic video production) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mm_generate_image or mm_start_comic_video. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative references, so the guidance remains implied rather than direct.

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