quote_regenerate_shot_video

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses a significant behavior—zero deduction ('零扣费')—and states that a quote_id is returned. It does not describe whether the quote is ephemeral or whether it guarantees a future price, but the zero-fee disclosure adds real value beyond the schema.

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: purpose, returned value, and cost behavior in three short sentences. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, which is appropriate for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is being quoted, that it is free, and what is returned. The main deficiency is the lack of explicit parameter semantics, otherwise the tool is sufficiently contextualized to be called correctly.

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 storyboard_id as an integer over 0, with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions or explains storyboard_id. '某镜视频' obliquely implies the ID identifies a shot video, but the mapping from the parameter to the target resource is not stated, leaving the agent to infer the critical input semantics.

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 clearly states that this tool returns a quote for how many points it costs to regenerate a shot video and that it returns a quote_id. This is more informative than a tautology, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related quote tools such as quote_edit_video_shot or quote_videos.

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 core usage is implied: call this tool when the agent needs a point-cost quote for regenerating a shot video. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives like quote_videos or the subsequent regenerate_shot_video execution tool, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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