generate_transitions

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

The description explicitly discloses that the operation is asynchronous ('后台异步'), which is valuable behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries a heavier burden; it does not mention side effects, how to monitor completion, or whether existing transitions are overwritten. It adds one key behavior but leaves others undisclosed.

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 extremely concise: one short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes only essential extra information about asynchronous execution. Every word earns its place.

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 asynchronous mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not say what response the agent should expect, whether a job ID is returned, or how to check the status of the background operation. The agent would struggle to invoke and monitor this tool correctly with only this description.

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?

The schema provides only the parameter name and type for episode_id, with 0% description coverage. The description partially compensates by clarifying the operation applies to an entire episode, but it does not explain how to obtain the ID, what format is expected, or how the ID maps to a specific episode beyond the name. It adds some meaning but not enough to fully cover the schema gap.

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 ('自动加转场', automatically add transitions), the target resource ('整集', the whole episode), and concrete examples ('闪白/玻璃碎裂等'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_sfx or generate_effects by naming the transition-specific operation.

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 the use case: add transitions to a completed episode. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not name alternatives that might be more appropriate in other circumstances. Usage context is present but not fully developed.

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