generate_color_script

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only reveals a prerequisite and an unclear payment phrase ('文本步后付不欠费'); it does not say whether the tool creates a stored resource, runs asynchronously, overwrites an existing color script, or returns anything. Side effects and follow-up behavior are largely opaque.

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 short and front-loaded: action, purpose, then prerequisite. However, the final clause '文本步后付不欠费' is awkward and ambiguous, so it does not clearly earn its place and weakens the otherwise compact structure.

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?

The core invocation is simple with only two params and no nested objects, but the lack of annotations and output schema raises the burden on the description. It omits what happens after generation—such as whether the result is stored, returned directly, or retrievable via get_color_scripts. For a generation tool, this is a material gap in operational 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 coverage is only 50%: episode_id has a description, but drama_id does not. The phrase '该剧/集已有剧本文本' ties both parameters to the prerequisite and conveys the drama/episode distinction, which is a small addition beyond the schema. It does not explain drama_id's meaning or the exact relationship between drama_id and episode_id beyond the schema's 'optional' hint.

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 concrete action (生成 = generate) and a specific resource (剧目色彩脚本 = drama color script), with a parenthetical clarifying the goal: unifying the whole film's color mood. The 'generate' verb contrasts naturally with the sibling get_color_scripts, so an agent can distinguish creation from retrieval. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the action+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 provides an explicit prerequisite: the drama/episode must already have a script text, which tells an agent when the call is valid. It also groups drama and episode via '该剧/集', hinting at the optional episode-level invocation. However, it does not mention get_color_scripts as the alternative for reading existing color scripts, nor does it state when not to generate.

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