Completes missing visual motifs in the ending shot by attaching visual echoes from previously set motifs. Run before rendering the final frame to avoid outdated ending visuals.
(可选增强·★非必须·条件性)给结尾段补全缺失的视觉母题(嫁接视觉回响到结尾镜)。★前置:该剧已设 motifs(没设=空操作);会改结尾镜 action/描述,务必出图前做(否则结尾镜已出图会陈旧)。后台异步,文本步后付。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| episode_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.57Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies the ending mirror's action/description, that it is background/async, and that it can be a no-op if prerequisites are missing. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool, though it does not mention reversibility or output/status.
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 very compact and front-loads the most important classification (optional, conditional, enhancement) before specifying behavior. Every clause adds essential information: prerequisite, effect, timing, async behavior. The dense use of ★ markers makes it a bit cryptic but still highly efficient.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the key context: what it changes, when it must be called, and what happens without motifs. However, it does not clarify success/return values or how the async result is tracked, and the episode_id parameter is left entirely undocumented in prose.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter's meaning. The description never mentions episode_id or explains that the episode must be the one whose ending motifs should be completed. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no direct value to it.
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 a specific action (补全缺失的视觉母题/嫁接视觉回响到结尾镜) on a specific resource (结尾段/结尾镜). It distinguishes itself by being marked as optional, conditional, and enhancement-specific, which separates it from general generation tools. Minor jargon ('视觉母题', '结尾镜') slightly reduces clarity.
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 explicit conditions for when to use it: only if the drama already has motifs set, otherwise it is a no-op. It also gives timing guidance (before rendering, after text step, background async). It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it beyond the no-motif no-op condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.