createMediaSmartCoverJob

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's asynchronous (suggested by 'Job' in the name), what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits or side effects. The description provides zero behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by 'create'.

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 extremely concise - a single Chinese phrase. While this could be seen as efficient, it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise. However, given that it's a single phrase with no wasted words and gets straight to the point (albeit minimally), it earns a relatively high score for conciseness despite its substantive deficiencies.

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 complexity implied by 'SmartCoverJob' and the complete absence of annotations and output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'media smart cover' is, what the job does, what inputs are needed beyond the schema, what the expected output or result looks like, or any behavioral characteristics. For a job creation tool with no structured metadata, this description provides inadequate context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear parameter description for 'objectKey' ('对象在存储桶里的路径'). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 '创建媒体智能封面任务' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'createMediaSmartCoverJob' in Chinese. It provides no additional specificity about what 'media smart cover' means, what resource is being acted upon, or what the actual outcome of this 'creation' entails. While it does contain a verb ('创建') and a noun phrase ('媒体智能封面任务'), it lacks meaningful differentiation from sibling tools.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or what distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'createDocToPdfJob', 'describeMediaJob', or other media processing tools. There's no indication of when this tool is the correct choice versus when other tools should be used instead.

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