quote_edit_video_shot

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 disclose key behavioral traits: it is a zero-charge operation ('零扣费'), returns a quote_id, and requires existing video for the shot. It does not mention quote validity or side effects, but for a quoting tool the stated details are meaningful and non-obvious.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each clause adds value: what is quoted, the model, the return value, the zero-deduction property, and the prerequisite. No wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter quote tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, prerequisite, cost behavior, and return value. It does not explicitly say that the returned quote_id should be used with edit_video_shot, but the sibling context and return type make this reasonably inferable.

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 only parameter is storyboard_id. The description refers to '本镜' (this shot), which maps to storyboard_id, but it never explicitly names the parameter or explains that storyboard_id identifies the shot. The prerequisite partially compensates, but the parameter meaning is mostly inferred from the tool name.

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 '报价' (quote) applied to a specific resource ('对某镜做就地编辑/区间替换' on a shot), and distinguishes it from regeneration tools by specifying '就地编辑/区间替换' with the 'Seedance 2.5' model. It also names the return value 'quote_id', making the tool's purpose 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?

The description gives a clear prerequisite: '本镜须已有视频' (the shot must already have video), which helps an agent decide when this tool is applicable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the prerequisite and operation type imply the usage context sufficiently.

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