Generate an AI product anchor image for a product ID to prevent missing visual references and product drift in storyboard-based video generation. Pay-per-use billing.
★广告项目:给商品库里某商品 AI 出设定图(广告露出锚)。商品无设定图 → 出视频时按分镜 grep 产品名取图当锚会落空、产品漂移。图片步,按用量后付不欠费。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.57Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool performs AI generation and mentions billing behavior (pay per usage, no arrears), which is useful. It does not disclose whether an existing product image is overwritten, whether the operation is synchronous, or what the output is, but the core generation behavior is visible.
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 compact and front-loads the main purpose and resource. The billing note and downstream-consequence note add relevant context, though the phrasing is slightly run-on and the emoji/asterisk adds noise without blocking understanding.
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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and one important consequence, but omits return behavior (e.g., image URL, job status) and whether existing sheets are replaced. These gaps prevent full autonomy for an agent choosing and invoking the tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It refers to 'a product in the product library,' providing context that product_id refers to an existing product ID. It does not explain how to obtain the ID or what values are valid beyond being a positive integer, but the single simple parameter leaves little ambiguity.
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 generates a setting image (设定图) for a product in the product library — with a clear resource. It distinguishes itself from related sheet tools by emphasizing 'product' rather than character or prop, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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 implies when to use the tool by explaining the downstream failure if a product has no setting image: video generation will fail to find an anchor and product drift occurs. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, leaving usage guidance to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.