kling_generate_turbo_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two non-obvious behaviors: native audio is always on with no off switch (matching the const true schema field) and results must be polled. It omits cost/credit, permission, or failure behavior for a paid generation call.

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 terse sentences with no filler; the capability statement comes first and the operational note (polling) last. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the polling pointer covers the async workflow. Still, for a generative paid tool with a 0%-covered nested schema, the description leaves several parameters (mode, aspect_ratio, start_image_url) unexplained for callers.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does: it explains the duration range and the audio constraint, but says nothing about mode (std/pro), aspect_ratio, start_image_url, callback_url, or the prompt length limit.

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?

Names a specific verb (Generate) plus the model variant (V3 Turbo), resolution options, and duration range, which lets an agent distinguish it from the generic kling_generate_video. It does not mention text2video/image2video modes or name the sibling it is not, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 instruction to 'Poll kling_get_task' is genuine usage guidance for the follow-up step, which matters because async defaults to true. However there is no guidance on when to choose this over kling_generate_video, kling_generate_video_from_image, or kling_generate_with_assets.

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