kling_generate_storyboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that generation is asynchronous and must be polled via kling_get_task, which is real value beyond the schema. It omits cost/credit implications, failure/retry behavior, and whether prompt or multi_prompt is required for each shot_type.

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, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the required follow-up action; no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness substitutes brevity for needed specifics rather than reflecting a genuinely complete definition.

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 14-parameter generation tool with a nested shot array, no annotations, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin; the output schema plus 'poll' covers results retrieval, but the agent is left guessing how to construct custom multishot requests. A one-line note on multi_prompt vs prompt would close the main gap.

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 0% and there are 14 nested fields, yet the description explains only the model and shot-type dimension ('automatic or custom'). Key parameters such as multi_prompt/Shot.index, duration bounds (3-15), aspect_ratio, start_image_url/end_image_url, callback_url, and generate_audio get no explanation in either the schema or the description.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Generate ... multishot video') plus the supported models (V3/V3 Omni), which distinguishes it from the plain kling_generate_video siblings. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead when the user doesn't need multishot.

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?

'Poll kling_get_task' gives a clear post-call workflow step, which is useful routing guidance. However, it never says when this tool is preferable to kling_generate_video, kling_generate_turbo_video, or kling_generate_video_from_image, leaving the alternative selection to inference.

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