generate_mv_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (writing scriptContent) and adds a billing note ('按用量后付'). Yet it doesn't state whether the operation overwrites existing content, whether lyrics and story must already exist, or whether the call is asynchronous – leaving notable gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then adds pipeline context and a billing note, each sentence earning its place. The structure is dense and 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 one-parameter tool, the description provides sufficient context: input source (lyrics+story), output (scriptContent), and follow-up steps (extract_assets → 分镜). It doesn't discuss return values or job status, but with no output schema that is not strictly required. A minor gap is the lack of explicit statement that drama_id must reference an existing MV project, though this is implied.

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%, and the description adds no meaning about the required drama_id parameter. The name alone suggests it identifies the drama/project, but the description never explains how to obtain it, what it represents, or any constraints beyond the schema's integer type. With low coverage, the description was expected to compensate but did not.

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 and resource: '据歌词+故事写首集可拍剧本(写 scriptContent)' – write a shootable first-episode script based on lyrics and story, specifically writing scriptContent. It also sets the tool's position before the standard pipeline ('之后走标准 extract_assets → 分镜 → …'), helping distinguish it from downstream tools and from siblings like generate_mv_story.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: for MV projects, when you have lyrics and a story, to produce a first-episode script. It also indicates the next steps to follow. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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