loremotion_generate_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does add real behavioral context: it discloses two session modes (persistent signed-in vs anonymous ephemeral) and explicitly states that ads and site limits are not bypassed. This helps an agent anticipate auth and compliance behavior, though it still omits response shape, wait semantics, and failure modes.

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 sentences with no filler, tautology, or repetition. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds relevant session and ad-related constraints without bloating the 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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description omits central operational details: what the call returns, what wait=false means, how timeoutMs interacts with generation, and what a successful response looks like. The session/ads context is useful but does not make the description complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 only 14% (only imagePath has a description), and the tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning. For 7 parameters including model, aspectRatio, durationSeconds, and timeoutMs, the agent must infer semantics from names and enums alone; the description does nothing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Generate a LoreMotion video through the website.' It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (list_history, download_video, probe_ui, auth_status) because it is the creation operation, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 purpose itself implies when to use the tool, and the session/ads notes add context about how it may be used. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives, does not state prerequisites for each session mode, and gives no negative usage guidance, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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