rerender_episode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add useful traits — free cost (pure ffmpeg+COS) and asynchronous execution ('后台异步'). However, it omits what happens to previously rendered output, whether the operation is destructive to existing files, and how completion is surfaced, which matters for an async timeline-rebuild mutation.

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?

Extremely efficient: one short parenthetical plus two bolded trait markers. The invocation context is front-loaded, and every clause adds information (cost, engine, async behavior). No filler.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential call context: when to use it, cost characteristics, and async execution. Minor gaps remain around failure semantics and how the agent detects completion, but these are not blocking for a correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description says nothing about the parameter. However, there is only one parameter, episode_id, whose meaning is essentially self-evident from its name and the title of the tool, so the gap is minor. It does not clarify units, format, or edge cases, but none are likely needed here.

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 ('重拼成片' — reassemble the final cut from the current timeline) on a specific resource (episode), with an explicit invocation context ('改完镜/裁剪后用' — after shot edits/trims). It does not name sibling alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough from render_multi_aspect and compose_episode that an agent can infer its 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?

Provides a clear when-to-use via '改完镜/裁剪后用' (use after modifying shots/trimming), which signals it is the final reassembly step rather than an initial render. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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