Motioneed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the key traits: asynchronous start returning immediately with status 'queued', the need to poll, that the operation 'Spends credits', and that the API key is required to retrieve video_url. Missing are cost magnitude, expected generation time, and what happens to credits on failure — meaningful gaps for an expensive async mutation, but the core behavioral contract is present.

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?

Three short sentences, all front-loaded with the action first and the follow-up workflow second. Every clause carries information: what it does, what it returns, how to poll, how to surface the result, and the credit cost.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the return contract itself — which it does by stating the immediate 'queued' status, the polling loop, and the two ways to get a usable link. For an async, credit-spending creation tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (url, prompt, images, aspect, seconds, voice, purpose, model) is already documented in the schema, including enums and defaults. The description only reinforces that url and prompt are alternative or combinable inputs. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Start a motion video') and names the two inputs that can seed it ('from a public product URL or a prompt'). It also differentiates itself from siblings by naming get_video and share_video as the follow-on tools, so an agent can place it in the pipeline without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit usage chain: start, poll get_video until 'ready', then surface video_url or call share_video. That is clear contextual guidance for how and when to invoke it and what to do next. It stops short of explicit exclusions — nothing says when to prefer revise_video over creating a new video — so it is not a full when/when-not statement.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description's only added content is naming the returned fields. It discloses nothing about auth requirements, whether the account is implicit from credentials, or how credits are denominated.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise — there is no lead verb or scope statement to front-load. Brevity here costs clarity.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place return values can be described, and it names only two fields (plan, credits) without structure or units. It is adequate to pick the tool but thin for interpreting the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The absence of inputs is consistent with an implicit 'current account' read.

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 fragment identifies the resource content ('plan and available credits') but omits a verb, leaving the agent to infer that this is a retrieval of the caller's account info. Siblings are all video-scoped, so there is no ambiguity to resolve, but the purpose statement is a noun phrase rather than a clear action.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus other tools, no mention of prerequisites such as authentication or which account is being read. The agent must guess that this returns the calling account's own state.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine behavioral context by enumerating the possible status values and explaining the revising flag, which an agent needs to interpret results. It stops short of describing the links payload or whether status can change between calls.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the state definitions. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise lack.

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 read-only getter with no output schema, the description covers purpose and result semantics (status values, revising flag) well. It leaves the shape of the returned links unexplained, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 100% and the single id parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from create_video or list_videos. The description adds no further meaning about the id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: returns status and links for a single video, which clearly separates it from list_videos (many) and create_video (write). It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied by scope rather than stated.

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 mention of transient states (queued, running, ready, failed; revising) implies this is a polling tool to check progress, but the description never says when to call it versus list_videos or how often to poll. Usage is inferred rather than guided.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavior beyond the annotation: the result set is capped at 50 and ordered newest-first, which matters. It does not say whether the 50 is a hard cap with no pagination or whether older videos are reachable another way — a meaningful omission for a 'newest' list.

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?

A single short noun phrase with no filler, and the most important fact (50 newest) is front-loaded. It loses a point only for being an incomplete sentence that reads like a title restatement rather than a description.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers the essentials: what is returned and how many. It is thin on whether the list is paginated, what fields each video carries (IDs? titles?), and whether '50' is a ceiling or a fixed page size — details an agent would want before calling.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies there are no filters (no limit/cursor is offered), which is consistent with the empty schema.

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 fragment names the resource and adds real scope (the account's 50 newest), so an agent can infer a listing of recent videos. But it supplies no verb and never contrasts with the close siblings get_video (single video) or the create/revise/share family, so the definition leans on the tool name to do the work.

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 when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no alternative named — nothing tells an agent whether to reach for this or get_video when it wants video data. The '50 newest' phrasing only hints at the use case implicitly.

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

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and delivers three concrete behaviors beyond the schema: the prior cut is retained as a version (non-destructive), the call spends credits (cost awareness), and the operation is asynchronous with a stated polling loop. That is exactly the disclosure an agent needs before invoking a credit-consuming 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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct load: what it does, what is preserved, and what it costs plus how to track completion. The action and its examples are front-loaded with 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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate, and it does for cost, destructiveness, and async tracking. It is slightly thin on what the call returns (e.g., an updated id or version handle), though the polling instruction largely covers how to verify the result.

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 100%, so id, note, and at are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The note examples in the description add intuitive meaning to the note parameter, but the optional 'at' second-marker is left to the schema alone.

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?

Specific verb ('Change') plus resource ('a ready video') with two concrete note examples that make the operation tangible, and it references get_video for polling, which separates it from the read siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with create_video or list_videos, so sibling differentiation is partial rather than explicit.

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?

States the precondition ('a ready video') and the follow-up workflow ('poll get_video until revising is false'), which is real usage guidance an agent needs. It stops short of saying when not to use it (e.g., that a new video requires create_video instead of a note).

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that sharing is public and requires no account to watch, but omits authorization requirements, idempotency, what happens to existing links, and what is returned.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste. The primary action and default are front-loaded, followed by the important public-access implication.

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 simple two-parameter toggle, the description covers the core action, default, and visibility consequence. Missing details about required permissions and the returned share link keep it from being fully complete.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by stating that 'on' defaults to true, which the schema does not explicitly say.

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 verb and resource: turning a public share link on or off for a video. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like create_video, get_video, list_videos, and revise_video.

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?

Implies the video must be ready and explains the default behavior (on) versus turning the link off. It does not name alternatives, but there is no obvious sibling tool that performs sharing.

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