configure_voice_and_script

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: how narration vs silence holds work, actual audio length measurement for narration, pure silence duration recommendations, total time limit of 10 minutes, and strict requirements for afterChar and page_marks. It effectively communicates what the tool does under different conditions.

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 concise, using a single paragraph that delivers essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with details. While it could benefit from bullet points for readability, the current structure effectively conveys all needed information in a compact form.

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 the complexity of 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter usage, constraints, prerequisites (e.g., page_marks for multi-page), and a critical call-to-action (call get_render_preview before rendering). No gaps remain for an agent to misuse the tool.

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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, the tool description adds significant value by explaining relationships among parameters (e.g., page_marks must align with script, afterChar must match charEnd, narration triggers separate TTS). It provides context that the schema alone does not, such as durationMs ranges and the 10-minute limit, enhancing the agent's understanding.

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 the tool's purpose: configuring dubbing, script, and audio-visual synchronization with optional holds. It uses specific verbs and resources (设置配音配置、解说文案、声画同步) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_render_preview or upload_html, which serve different functions.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool, including prerequisites (project_id, script, voice_model), constraints (afterChar must equal charEnd, page_marks must cover script), and recommendations (durationMs range, total TTS+holds limit). It also mentions when not to use it implicitly by requiring page_marks for multi-page and calling get_render_preview before rendering. No explicit alternative is needed as sibling tools have distinct purposes.

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