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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered by structured data. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations—it does not explain what the tool creates or modifies, whether it needs auth, or how it behaves. It does not contradict annotations, but it contributes essentially nothing.

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 short, but this brevity is under-specification rather than useful conciseness. For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, five characters of text do not earn their place.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema) and the sparse schema descriptions, the definition is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the tool does, when to call it, or how its parameters work from the description alone.

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 9 parameters with only 22% description coverage, leaving most parameters undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description provides no parameter-level meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 '视频动作控制' is a noun phrase that restates the tool name rather than specifying an action, so it does not distinguish this tool from sibling video tools like video_generate, video_edit, or video_character_swap. It is a tautology, matching the calibration anchor for a score of 2.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what it is an alternative to, or what prerequisites it has. The description provides nothing beyond the name, so an agent cannot infer usage context from it.

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