visual-ops-writer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one important trait: '自动等待任务完成' (automatically waits for task completion), which tells the agent the tool handles asynchronous work internally. However, it does not mention failure behavior, rate limits, costs, or what happens when a reference image is invalid, so behavioral disclosure is only partial.

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 compact sentence with purpose front-loaded, followed by key capabilities and the auto-wait behavior in parentheses. There is no filler, no repetition of the tool name, and every clause contributes useful information.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description frames the operation adequately but leaves gaps: it does not specify the return shape, clarify the dependency between style=reference and referenceImage, or explain whether '批量风格' means multiple outputs in a single call. The schema covers parameter syntax well, but the absence of an output schema raises the need for more behavioral 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including style enum meanings and referenceImage usage. The description adds only high-level feature hints like '参考图' and '批量风格' but does not clarify whether referenceImage becomes required when style=reference or how batch styles are represented in a call.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair: '提交文字提示词生成图片' (submit a text prompt and generate an image), and adds the use case '视觉运营文案配图'. It is unambiguous as an image-generation tool, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like seedance-video-gen, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 it ('视觉运营文案配图' for visual operations copy illustrations) and how to use it ('提交文字提示词生成图片'), but it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. The usage context is clear enough to infer, but exclusions are absent.

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