mm_start_comic_video

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

The description discloses that the task runs in the background and generates shots sequentially, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. It also explains that it returns a job_id for later status queries and that resume_job_id can resume unfinished jobs. These details complement the annotations' readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true without contradiction.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, followed by a clean Args list and a Returns line that points to the query tool. Each line adds value without redundancy.

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 covers the core workflow: input, options, output, and follow-up. It mentions the return type and the sibling tool for querying, and the background behavior. For a tool that starts an async job, this is sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 description provides a full Args section with detailed explanations for all three parameters, including default values, trade-offs (fast vs slow size), and the origin of script_path (generated by mm_create_comic_script). Since the schema has 0% description coverage, this completely fills the gap.

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 uses a specific verb '启动' (start) with a clear resource '漫剧生产任务' and specifies the input (script JSON) and mode (background shot-by-shot). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mm_create_comic_script (which creates the script) and mm_query_comic_video (which queries progress).

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 clearly states the prerequisite (script JSON from mm_create_comic_script) and points the user to mm_query_comic_video for progress, establishing the tool's position in the workflow. It also explains resume_job_id for continuing incomplete jobs, providing context on when to resume. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this versus mm_generate_video, so it's not a full alternative comparison.

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