generate_art_bible

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions that the tool reads characters and metadata and runs after the text step, but it does not disclose side effects, persistence, output format, or cost behavior. The phrase '付不欠费' is cryptic and does not meaningfully clarify billing.

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 a useful parenthetical breakdown and a front-loaded action-object pair. It is easy to scan, though the trailing '文本步后付不欠费' is somewhat opaque.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: what the output is, what state changes occur, what 'text step' precisely refers to, and how the billing note should be interpreted. It offers only a rough invocation 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?

The schema has one parameter, drama_id, with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention this parameter at all. It only hints at consumed data ('读角色+元数据'), which indirectly relates to the drama context but does not compensate for the missing parameter explanation.

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 gives a clear action ('生成美术圣经') and specifies the content dimensions (色调/材质/气质) plus the data source (读角色+元数据). It is distinguishable from sibling generation tools, though the term 'art bible' itself is not explained.

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?

It provides a sequencing cue ('文本步后') indicating this tool should be used after the script/text step. However, it does not state when not to use it or name an alternative among the many sibling generation tools.

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