Plans a 120-second anime romance chapter with Japanese dialogue and Chinese captions. Provide series ID and chapter number to structure the episode offline.
Plan a 120-second Japanese-dialogue chapter with Chinese captions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quality | No | ||
| series_id | Yes | ||
| duration_sec | No | ||
| chapter_number | Yes | ||
| chapter_prompt | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the planning intent, but does not reveal side effects, whether it persists data, permissions required, or the nature of the output. The tool likely creates a plan record, but this is not disclosed.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose efficiently. However, its brevity contributes to the lack of essential details, but conciseness itself is good.
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?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It fails to explain the planning process, expected output, or how it differs from sibling tools. An agent would be guessing at most invocation details.
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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions '120-second' which maps to duration_sec, but does not explicitly link it. It entirely omits series_id, chapter_number, quality, and chapter_prompt, leaving the agent without any parameter meaning beyond raw property names. This is a critical 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 clearly states the action (Plan) and the resource (a romance chapter), and adds specific constraints (120-second, Japanese-dialogue, Chinese captions). This differentiates it from siblings like write_script or render_episode, though it doesn't name them explicitly. 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_episode or write_script. The description implies it is for planning, but does not state prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. An agent must infer its role in the pipeline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.