replace_shot_dialogue

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden and does so well: it reveals the operation is asynchronous, billed by usage, does not regenerate video, mutes the original audio segment, and can cause lip-sync mismatch. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the name or schema convey.

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?

All content is useful and the purpose is front-loaded, but the description is dense and mixes pricing, requirements, use-case, and caveats into one long block. It earns a strong score for zero fluff, though a more structured layout would improve scannability.

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 async tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it covers prerequisites, when to use it, cost comparison, side effects, and alternatives. It falls short only in not saying what the call returns (e.g., job id/status) and not explicitly tying storyboard_id to the described 'shot'.

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 a single bare integer storyboard_id with no property description and 0% schema coverage. The description only refers to '某镜' ('a shot') and never explicitly connects that to the storyboard_id parameter, nor explains how to obtain or format it. For a parameter that is required, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

States a specific action — replacing a shot's dialogue voice/timbre via transcription and clone re-dubbing — and names the target resource (a shot). It also differentiates from related siblings by explicitly mentioning regenerate_shot_video and repair_episode_dialogue, so an agent can select it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly identifies when to use it: as the cheapest fix for a shot whose line was not completed or was misread. It names alternatives (regenerate_shot_video for full regeneration, repair_episode_dialogue for whole-episode batching), states prerequisites (original audio video + finalized character voice), and gives shot-type guidance (avoid close-ups, near-lossless for off-screen/back/long shots).

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