text_to_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions output but does not disclose that the task is asynchronous, that the 'wait' parameter controls polling, or that generation may take time. The phrase 'Returns a task id, status, and output URLs' is misleading if outputs are not immediately available.

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?

Single sentence of 13 words is concise and front-loaded with purpose. However, it could be restructured to include key behavioral context without adding length. Every word is useful, but more context is needed.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain the async workflow, required fields (e.g., prompt), model selection, or timeout behavior. The output schema is absent, so description should clarify return structure but only lists three fields.

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 18%, meaning most parameters lack descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific information. It only mentions return values, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of 11 parameters. This is a critical gap.

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?

Description states 'Create a HappyHorse task on RunAPI (text to video)' which clearly identifies the action and resource. 'Text to video' clarifies the modality. It distinguishes from sibling tools like edit_video and get_task, but could be more explicit about the model name.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_video or get_task. No context about prerequisites or when not to use it. The description leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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