quote_shot_frame

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it states '零扣费', return fields 'estimated_points、quote_id', and the response's 'billing_kind/unit_points (实际计费档与单价)'. It also exposes the model-consistency requirement with generate_shot_frame, going well 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?

Four dense sentences front-load the purpose, then cover cost, return values, the trigger scenario, and the model-consistency caveat. There is no filler and no restating of schema enum values.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main inputs, zero-charge behavior, returned fields, and the image_model link to generate_shot_frame. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly say how the returned quote_id is consumed downstream or clarify what storyboard_id identifies.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds real meaning for frame_type ('both=首尾各一张', default first_frame) and image_model ('须与随后 generate_shot_frame 传的一致;不传=用 drama 级设定,默认香蕉2'). storyboard_id is only typed as an integer, but it is the self-evident required id; a one-line clarification of what entity it refers to would make this a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '报价:重画/补出某一镜的某一帧要多少点', and clarifies one frame equals one image. It also differentiates the tool from the alternative path by saying it should be used rather than generating externally and calling upload_shot_frame, so an agent can separate it from siblings like quote_frames or generate_shot_frame.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: '客户说「第 N 镜画错了/要改」时用它', and an explicit when-not: '而不是拿别的图像平台出图再 upload_shot_frame'. It also instructs passing the same image_model as a later generate_shot_frame call, which is concrete routing advice.

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