video_frame

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool generates video, operates asynchronously, requires specific input formats, or what side effects or return values to expect. The single phrase reveals nothing about actual 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?

The description is a single phrase, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It does not provide essential information and could be expanded meaningfully without adding waste, so it does not earn high marks for structure.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the core operation, usage context, or expected result, making it inadequate for an AI agent to select and invoke 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 100%, so both required and optional parameters have individual descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which already adequately explains each parameter, meeting the baseline for high 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?

Description '首尾帧控制视频' hints at using first/last frames to control video, but lacks a specific verb (e.g., generate, edit) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'video' or 'video_multi'. It is a vague purpose statement, not a clear action-resource description.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'video', 'video_multi', or 'video_mix'. The description gives no context for scenarios where first/last frame conditioning is appropriate, nor any exclusions.

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