keyframe_animation

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: async operation with polling, potential multi-minute runtime, return dict with video_id/status/url/path/seconds/size. It also explains the 8n+1 frame count rule, which is critical for correct usage.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by structured Args section using consistent formatting. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, given the complexity of the tool.

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 an 11-parameter tool with 2 required, no enums, and existing output schema, the description comprehensively covers all aspects: input requirements, parameter defaults and ranges, async behavior, return structure, and output location. No gaps are evident.

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 0%, yet the description adds rich semantics for all 11 parameters: explains the 'images' list requirement, default model, common num_frames values with duration approximations, frame_rate range, optional negative_prompt/seed/steps, and output_dir default. This far exceeds minimal schema information.

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 clearly states it generates a smooth video transitioning between multiple keyframe images, with text prompt guidance. It uniquely distinguishes from sibling tools like image_to_video (single image) and text_to_video (no images) by requiring 2+ image URLs as keyframes.

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 specifies to provide 2+ image URLs and that it's an async operation polling for completion. It hints at when to use (multiple images) but does not explicitly forbid single-image use or mention alternatives like image_to_video for single-image input.

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