create_moving_object_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says the video contains a moving object and does not disclose motion behavior, output format, defaults beyond the schema, or side effects. It adds no meaningful behavioral detail beyond the tool's name.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains no filler; the object_type values are useful and earn their place. It could be slightly clearer by labeling the list as supported values, but the structure is efficient.

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 6 optional-but-meaningful parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description explains only the core purpose and one parameter. An agent can invoke it with defaults, but it lacks enough context to predict how the object moves or what it will receive back.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only documents object_type with allowed values (circle, square, triangle). Width, height, duration, background, and object_color receive no explanation, leaving five of six parameters undocumented.

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 clear action ('Create a video') and a specific resource ('moving geometric object'), and it lists the supported object types. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like create_bouncing_object or create_animated_scene, so it stops 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over create_bouncing_object, create_custom_animation, or other animation siblings. The object_type list is parameter documentation, not usage context.

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