kling_video_commerce

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool creates an asynchronous task that should be polled with kling_get_task, but it omits other important behavioral details such as default async behavior, callback_url usage, permissions, or whether the operation is destructive.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded before the polling instruction. It is appropriately concise.

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 complex nested input schema, no annotations, and a sibling set with overlapping video-generation tools, the description is too sparse. It provides only a high-level purpose and a polling hint, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke the tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only names "avatar" and "speech_script" without mapping them to the nested content types. It does not explain the required contents array, settings, or other important schema fields.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Generate creator/product voiceover from an avatar and speech_script." This clearly identifies the output and core inputs. However, it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as kling_goods_studio or other video-generation tools.

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 description says "Poll kling_get_task," which gives useful post-invocation guidance. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives like kling_goods_studio or kling_generate_turbo_video, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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