generate_video_from_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the model (Veo 3.1) but does not explain whether the operation is async, how results are returned, account prerequisites, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a generation tool.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and model. It contains no redundant words and is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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 no output schema, and the description does not explain return values, prerequisites (e.g., Google account connection), or the distinction between providing an image via URL vs base64. The one-sentence description is insufficient for a 6-parameter generation tool.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already states, but the schema itself is sufficient.

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 explicitly states the action ('Animate a static image into an AI video') and the specific resource (Image-to-Video), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_image, generate_video, and upscale_image. It also names the underlying model (Google Veo 3.1), adding specificity.

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 clearly implies the intended use case—when you have a static image to animate—but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like generate_video (text-to-video) or mention exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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