generate_video_from_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: the operation is async (returns a requestId for polling), has a payment requirement, and involves animation. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or specific output formats beyond the requestId.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste-free. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral context (async nature and payment requirement), with every word earning its place.

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 complexity (5 required parameters, async operation, payment dependency) and no annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, async behavior, and prerequisites, but could improve by mentioning output details (e.g., polling mechanism) or error cases, though the lack of output schema isn't fully compensated.

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 the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Animate an image into a video') and resource ('image'), distinguishing it from siblings like generate_video (which likely doesn't use an image input) or generate_image (which creates static images). It provides a complete, unambiguous purpose statement.

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 context by stating 'Requires a valid paid payment ID,' which suggests prerequisites but doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_video or generate_ideo_from_text. No explicit when-not-to-use or sibling comparisons are provided.

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