image_to_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that the tool returns a task id, status, and output URLs. However, it does not disclose side effects, asynchronous behavior, cost implications, or failure modes, which is a significant gap for a creation task.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and return values without any wasted words. It earns its place and is easy to parse.

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 the tool has 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too minimal. It does not explain task lifecycle, how wait/polling works, model selection, or output format expectations, leaving the agent with substantial gaps for correct invocation.

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 17% and the description adds no parameter-level detail. It only hints at the nature of the tool ('image to video'), which indirectly suggests first_frame_image_url, but does not explain wait, model, timeout, callback, resolution, or other parameters.

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 action: 'Create a Hailuo task on RunAPI (image to video)', specifying both the resource and the mode. It implicitly differentiates from sibling text_to_video by explicitly noting 'image to 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 implies use for image-to-video generation, which distinguishes it from text_to_video, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is only lightly implied.

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