audio_to_video

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose asynchronous behavior, polling nature beyond the 'wait' parameter, rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. The 'wait' parameter hints at polling, but explicit context is missing.

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, front-loaded with purpose. The return value description is useful. Could be slightly more efficient but not wasteful.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and asynchronous behavior, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the overall workflow, polling logic, or parameter interplay. The return value mention helps but falls short.

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 coverage is low (29% of parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific information. It does not explain source_audio_url, source_image_url, timeout, poll interval, or resolution beyond what is in the schema.

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 an InfiniteTalk task converting audio to video, and lists the return values. It distinguishes from sibling tools (check_pricing, get_task) by being a creation tool, though not explicitly.

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 (check_pricing, get_task). It does not mention prerequisites, context, 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.