kling_generate_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It indicates asynchronous operation by mentioning a task_id for polling, but lacks details on auth requirements (beyond API key), error handling, rate limits, or failure modes. Some context provided, but insufficient.

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, 23 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Excellent conciseness.

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 9 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main functionality and async nature. However, missing details on error handling and expected completion times reduce completeness slightly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning—only referencing mode and the return of task_id (which is not a parameter). It does not enhance understanding of parameters beyond the schema.

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 generates a high-quality video from text using Kling AI, with support for standard and professional modes. It identifies the provider but does not explicitly differentiate from similar video generation siblings like pika_generate_video or runway_generate_video.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It mentions modes but does not explain when to choose standard vs professional or how this compares to other video generators.

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