generate_video_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions reading three inputs and 'generating' a lock prompt, but does not disclose whether this mutates state, what the returned prompt structure looks like, whether it consumes credits, or whether it is a safe read-only operation. The cryptic phrase '文本步后付不欠费' is ambiguous and does not meaningfully clarify behavior.

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 main action is front-loaded and compact, but the trailing phrase '文本步后付不欠费' is unclear and appears to confuse rather than inform. The parenthetical listing of inputs is useful, but overall the sentence carries some ambiguity that a cleaner structure could avoid.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without information about what the tool returns, whether it is safe to call, and how it sequences with surrounding pipeline steps. The description provides the input context but is incomplete for correct invocation beyond the drama_id parameter.

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 mention drama_id at all. The only parameter is simple and inferable from its name, but the description adds no guidance on how to obtain or validate it, so the agent must rely entirely on the schema's minimal type information.

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 ('生成' / generate), a specific resource ('视频风格锁 prompt' / video style lock prompt), and the intended effect ('统一视频生成方向' / unify video generation direction). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling generation tools like generate_videos or 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 gives clear usage context: it reads brief/artBible/visualLock and is meant to lock the video generation direction. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when this step is appropriate in the pipeline.

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