Generate a video on Movoa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that runs cost credits (with a pricing URL), that generation takes minutes, and the exact async contract (returns a run id by default vs. blocking with wait up to 30 minutes). It omits failure/refund behavior and rate limits, which would be needed for a 5.

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?

Dense but tight: mode selection, defaults, cost, latency, and the polling contract are all front-loaded in roughly four sentences with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains exactly what comes back (a run id) and how to follow up (check_status, or 'wait'), plus cost and latency expectations. Combined with 100% schema coverage on all 7 params, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 parameters such as duration/model enums and aspect_ratio constraints are already fully documented. The description only restates the minimax-h3/480p default and the image_url photo-to-video switch, which the schema already conveys — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('generate a video clip with sound') and explicitly covers both modes — text-to-video and photo-to-video via image_url. It also names the default model/resolution and routes to the sibling 'check_status', so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear selection conditions: pass image_url to animate a photo, otherwise generate from prompt; default is async with a run id to poll via check_status, with 'wait' to block. It lacks explicit 'when not to use this' or guidance on model selection tradeoffs beyond that minimax-h3 is lowest cost.

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