Generate talking avatar

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits not covered by annotations: it blocks for 1–3 minutes, spends credits, and requires a specific capability flag. These are significant for an agent to plan execution. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a URL, file path) or any side effects beyond spending credits, so a 4 reflects good but not exhaustive transparency.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical constraints (blocking, credits, capability) are stated compactly. Every clause adds value.

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?

For a generation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, blocking duration, credit cost, and capability prerequisite. The main gap is the absence of any mention of the output format (e.g., returns a media URL or file), which an agent needs to handle the result. Given the complexity, it is mostly complete but missing that return detail.

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 100% and each parameter already has a clear description (e.g., image is a portrait, script is the spoken words, resolution lists options). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating 'portrait image + script'. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 renders a talking avatar / creator lip-sync clip from a portrait image and a script. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like generate_voice (audio only) or generate_video (generic video) by naming 'talking-avatar' and 'lip-sync'.

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 when to use (need a talking avatar) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when NOT to use it. The capability requirement (canAvatar) and blocking behavior suggest a specific use case, but no exclusions or comparative routing to other content-generation tools are provided.

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