Build a Wan 3.0 video prompt

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool does not call a model, which is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations, though it does not discuss output format or auth/rate limits.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that lists the components without waste. Every phrase contributes to describing the tool's inputs and scope.

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 no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description gives a workable top-level summary but leaves gaps in parameter semantics and usage relative to siblings. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must supply parameter meaning. It names most conceptual inputs (subject, action, scene, camera, lighting, audio, reference roles, exclusions) and implies the mode values, but it omits visualStyle, framing details, constraints, and optionality, so it only partially compensates.

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 specific verb ('Assemble') and resource ('copy-ready text-to-video or image-to-video prompt'), and lists the inputs, so the tool's function is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools by name, which keeps it from 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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'without calling a model' implies the tool is for prompt construction rather than generation, but alternatives and conditions are absent.

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