generate_world_concept

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that this is a mandatory, often-forgotten pipeline step, that it must not run silently because it consumes points, and that it requires client confirmation. It also notes fixed after-the-fact payment and a prerequisite on setting_brief length, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond the verb 'generate.'

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 key information is front-loaded: mandatory default, deliverable format, then billing and prerequisite warnings. It is compact and dense with no filler, though the heavy use of parentheticals and Chinese punctuation makes it slightly less readable than a structured description would be.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential calling context: when to run it, prerequisites, deliverable shape, and client-confirmation/billing rules. It does not explain what the response returns or what to do if setting_brief is below 30 characters, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in the main flow.

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 has only one parameter, drama_id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description needs to compensate. It indirectly references the target drama by requiring its setting_brief to be ≥30 characters, but it never explicitly explains that drama_id identifies the drama whose setting brief is checked. This gives partial guidance but leaves the parameter mapping implicit.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it generates a world-concept image in a fixed four-cell layout (panorama/era/main scene/color), with the purpose of improving visual consistency. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling generation tools by naming the exact deliverable structure.

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 explicit trigger conditions: it is the default step after storyboards, should not be skipped, and requires setting_brief ≥30 characters. It also states the billing workflow (notify client of estimated points, get confirmation before running, no silent charges). It does not name alternative tools for when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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