kling_generate_with_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context the schema lacks: V2.6 voices cost 1.68 Credits/second, and ownership is verified server-side. However it says nothing about the async default, task-based return flow, or what happens on verification failure.

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, front-loaded with the distinguishing capability, and each sentence carries content (capability, cost, verification). The cost sentence is slightly cryptic in isolation but not wasteful. No filler or repetition.

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?

This is a complex video-generation tool whose description omits the essentials: that output is asynchronous by default, which model/mode combinations are valid, duration limits, and how element/voice ownership must be established first. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the invocation-level gaps remain significant.

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% for a request object with roughly a dozen meaningful fields (mode, model, action, duration, aspect_ratio, async, generate_audio, start/end image URLs). The description only touches voice_id and element_id and the credit cost; mode/model/duration/async semantics are undocumented in both places, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb 'Generate' plus the qualifier 'with platform element or voice IDs' identifies the tool's distinguishing inputs, which separates it from siblings like kling_generate_video or kling_generate_video_from_image. It never explicitly names the resource (video), but the schema's AssetVideoRequest makes that recoverable. Clear, though not as crisp as naming verb+resource+scope outright.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent infers this is the tool to pick when it has an element_id or voice_id to attach. No alternative is named and no exclusions are given (e.g. 'for plain text-to-video use kling_generate_video'), so the routing decision is left to inference.

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