generate_video_from_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the basic behavioral trait that the image serves as the starting frame and prompt guides animation, but doesn't mention important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, output format (video file type), processing time, or error conditions. For a complex video generation tool with 7 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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, zero waste. First sentence states the core purpose, second provides crucial usage guidance. Both sentences earn their place by adding value beyond what's in the schema or annotations.

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 a complex video generation tool with 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (video file format, URL, metadata), error handling, rate limits, or processing characteristics. While purpose and basic usage are clear, behavioral context is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the image serves as starting frame and prompt guides animation, which the schema already covers for image_url and prompt parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does 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 distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it uses an image as the starting frame with a prompt to guide animation. It differentiates from 'generate_video' (which likely doesn't start from an image) and 'generate_video_from_video' (which starts from 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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Use upload_file first if you have a local image.' This gives clear prerequisites and distinguishes from alternatives like 'upload_file' for local files. It also implies this tool is for image-to-video conversion specifically.

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