Build a China AI video prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating it does not generate video and that the output is 'deterministic', giving insight into behavior beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful context about the tool's 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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scope, and the second sentence delivers an important caution. Every word earns its place.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation in the schema, the description is too sparse. It explains the high-level purpose and some controls but omits the output structure, China-specific context (despite the title), and details on key parameters like workflow and duration. It is adequate for orientation but not fully complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions motion, camera, lighting, reference, and continuity controls, which map to several parameters (motion, camera, lighting, referenceConstraints), and 'English or Chinese' hints at outputLanguage. However, it does not explain workflow, aspectRatio, durationSeconds, negativeConstraints, style, or idea, leaving many parameters unexplained.

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 verb 'Turn' and the resource 'a rough idea into a deterministic English or Chinese prompt pack', listing the control domains (motion, camera, lighting, reference, continuity). The explicit negation 'This does not generate video' distinguishes it from video generation tools and positions it against siblings like diagnose_video_prompt, which likely analyzes prompts.

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 gives a clear negative constraint ('does not generate video') but offers no explicit alternatives or conditions for when to use this tool versus siblings like plan_reference_shots or get_china_video_resources. It implies usage (when you have a rough idea) but does not name or contrast with related tools.

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