generate_sfx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does add real value: it states the operation runs in the background asynchronously and is billed post-paid by usage. It does not mention how to check job status or what happens on failure, but the disclosed async and cost behavior is beyond the schema.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action and scope in the first sentence and lifecycle/cost behavior in the second. Extraordinarily lean while still being informative.

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 an async operation with no output schema, the description tells the agent it is background and paid, but it does not specify the return value/job ID or how to monitor completion. Since this is a single-parameter trigger, a status-check pointer would make it complete.

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%, yet there is only one parameter, episode_id, whose meaning is partially conveyed by '整集' (whole episode). The description does not explain constraints or effects of the parameter beyond that, but the self-evident name plus episode scoping make the gap modest.

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 names a specific operation ('automatically match + generate SFX') and scopes it to an entire episode, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like generate_tts, generate_bgm, and generate_effects. It doesn't explicitly call out sibling differentiation, but the SFX+episode scope 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?

It establishes the context (whole-episode SFX matching/generation) so an agent can infer when to pick it, but it does not state explicit exclusions or name alternatives, and it omits prerequisites or when not to use it.

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