image_to_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions task creation and returns, but fails to explain crucial behaviors like polling (implied by 'wait' parameter), whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects.

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 efficient sentence with no fluff. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, lacking structural elements like bullet points or parameter groups that would aid comprehension.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the task model, polling behavior, image format requirements, aspect ratio constraints, or how to interpret the returned output URLs.

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 33% (only 'wait' and 'model' have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter explanations. Critical parameters like 'first_frame_image_url', 'output_resolution', 'timeout_ms', and 'poll_interval_ms' remain completely undocumented, leaving the agent without context on how to set them.

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 HappyHorse task') and the resource ('image to video'), with specific deliverables ('Returns a task id, status, and output URLs'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'text_to_video' by specifying the input type (image).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'text_to_video' or 'edit_video'. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it.

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