lipsync_episode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses two key behaviors: the operation runs asynchronously in the background ('后台异步') and is billed by usage after the fact ('按用量后付'). It does not mention whether existing lip-sync data is overwritten or what failure modes exist, but the most important operational traits are covered.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: what it does, how it runs, and how to track it. The core action is front-loaded, and every sentence 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 a one-parameter, asynchronous submission tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation, async semantics, cost model, and progress tracking. It could add prerequisites such as requiring existing audio/dialogue, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, but episode_id is self-explanatory and the description's '整集' maps directly to the target episode. The description adds context that the operation covers the full episode rather than a single shot, which is meaningful beyond the raw schema.

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 opening phrase '给整集批量口型同步' states a specific action (batch lip-sync) and resource (whole episode), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling lipsync_shot. The mention of async submission and checking progress via get_lipsync_status further clarifies the tool's role.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use get_lipsync_status to poll progress, which is a concrete routing instruction. It does not explicitly state when to use lipsync_shot instead, though '整集' (whole episode) implicitly contrasts with the shot-level sibling.

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