create_video_with_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. It mentions the image guides visual style, but does not disclose asynchronous behavior, required permissions, rate limits, or any side effects beyond creating a video. The tool mutates state, but this is not explicitly stated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no filler. Every word serves a 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?

For a complex media generation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this description is insufficient. It does not explain the relationship between prompt and image, expected output format, or mention that video creation is asynchronous (evidenced by sibling 'wait_for_video'). The description leaves the user guessing about the full workflow.

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 100% with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds value by explaining that the image guides visual style, which supplements the image_url/base64 parameter semantics, but this is minimal additional meaning.

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 the tool creates a video from an image as the first frame, using a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('video using an image'). This distinguishes it from sibling tool 'create_video' which likely creates video from text only.

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 implies usage when an image is available to guide the video, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'create_video' or state conditions when this tool should be preferred. The context is inferable but not explicit.

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