image_to_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states that it creates a task and returns an id, status, and output URLs. It does not explain that the task runs asynchronously, what side effects occur (e.g., resource consumption), or any authorization requirements. The wait parameter in the schema implies polling, but the description omits this critical detail.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It conveys the core purpose and return value, but does not provide a clear hierarchy of information. It earns its place but could be improved with bullet points or clearer phrasing.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the workflow (e.g., how to use the returned task id, what output URLs contain), the async nature of the task, or any error conditions. The agent has too little context to confidently use the tool 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 only 29% (two parameters: wait and model). The description adds no explanation for the remaining five parameters (aspect_ratio, motion_style, output_resolution, timeout_ms, poll_interval_ms). It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter usage.

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 creates a Grok Imagine task for image to video conversion. The verb 'Create' and resource 'Grok Imagine task' are specific, and the parenthetical '(image to video)' distinguishes it from sibling tools like text_to_video and extend_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or cases where other tools (e.g., extend_video, edit_image) would be more appropriate. The only implicit clue is 'image to video', which differentiates from text-to-video but fails to cover other siblings.

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