wan_generate_video_all_in_one

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing beyond 'generate'. It omits whether the call is synchronous or returns a task for polling (callback_url and wan_get_task strongly suggest async), and says nothing about cost, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; it is efficient and easy to scan. It is arguably too terse for a 9-parameter generator, but there is no wasted text.

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 9-parameter, unannotated generator with only 56% schema coverage, one sentence is insufficient. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but async behavior, parameter roles, and sibling differentiation are all missing.

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 only 56%, and the description adds zero parameter meaning beyond the schema. Key parameters such as seed, audio, watermark, and callback_url are undocumented in both places, and the description does not 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?

States a specific verb+resource (generate a Wan 3 video) and enumerates the input modes it accepts, which hints at its 'all-in-one' nature. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tools wan_generate_video and wan_generate_video_from_image, leaving the agent to guess which generator to call.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite three sibling video-generation tools. At best the input-mode list implies 'use this for any input type', but that inference is left entirely to the agent.

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