extract_visual_lock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does reveal that the tool writes a visual_lock rather than merely returning data, but it omits side effects, persistence, permissions, and response format; the cryptic '付不欠费' clause is not enough to count as meaningful disclosure.

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 core instruction is compact and front-loaded, but the second clause '文本步后付不欠费' is cryptic and does not earn its place; it obscures the intended usage timing. The description is short but not cleanly structured.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify what is returned/written, dependencies, and parameter resolution. It only names sources and purpose, omitting visual_lock structure, how characters are resolved, prerequisites, and return behavior.

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 coverage is only 50% because drama_id has no description. The description maps '世界观 Brief' to setting_brief but never explains how '角色' is supplied or how drama_id resolves the character context, leaving the agent to guess at the core input semantics.

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 verb ('抽取', extract), a resource ('世界观 Brief + 角色'), and the output artifact ('visual_lock') with its purpose (unifying image style/ethnicity). This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like extract_setting_brief, though the trailing billing phrase adds noise.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no alternative tools are named, and the '文本步后' timing hint is buried in an unclear billing note. An agent cannot reliably decide between this tool and related style/art-bible tools.

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