generate_video_script

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 it only states the final outcome. It does not reveal that the tool extracts video frames, calls Tencent Cloud, depends on credentials, or that cost is controlled via maxFrames.

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 efficient sentence with no filler and places the core action at the beginning. However, for a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the brevity borders on under-specification rather than ideal conciseness.

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?

This is a complex, cloud-backed tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is only one short clause. It omits when to use it, what the generated script looks like, how the video is processed, cost/credential implications, and any relationship to sibling tools.

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 structured parameters already carry the necessary meaning. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the schema fully documents all 11 parameters.

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 specific action ('generate'), a concrete resource ('professional shooting script'), and the input basis ('video content'). It is clear enough to distinguish from analysis-focused siblings like analyze_video_content, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with generate_image_script.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_video_content or generate_image_script. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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