generate_mv_story

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does add useful behavioral context: the operation can run in the background or synchronously and is billed by usage. It does not disclose side effects, whether an existing story line is overwritten, retry behavior, or required prior state, so coverage is partial.

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?

Two concise clauses: the first states the core function, the second captures execution mode and billing. There is no filler, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 generation tool, the description is minimally workable, but there is no output schema and no note about what the tool returns, how to retrieve results, or how this step fits after set_mv_lyrics and before generate_mv_script. These gaps reduce overall completeness.

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 does not explain drama_id at all. The parameter name and exclusiveMinimum constraint imply a drama/project identifier, but the description never clarifies that this ID carries the lyrics or project context needed to generate the story.

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 action ('AI 编一个 MV 故事线') and a clear resource (an MV story line based on lyrics), so an agent knows what the tool produces. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools such as generate_mv_script or generate_scene_groups, which could plausibly overlap with 'story line'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus generate_mv_script, set_mv_lyrics, or other generation alternatives. The '后台/同步,按用量后付' note is operational rather than a selection criterion, and no prerequisites such as lyrics already being set are mentioned.

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