ai_avatar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a task and returns specific fields, but it fails to mention behavioral traits like whether the operation is destructive (e.g., overwriting previous tasks), any authentication or rate limit constraints, or the nature of the 'status' field (e.g., polling behavior).

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, direct sentence that conveys the core action and outputs. While efficient, it could be improved by front-loading the return values or structuring into multiple sentences for clarity.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what constitutes a 'Kling task,' how to interpret the output fields, or the behavior of the 'wait' parameter. For a creator tool of this complexity, more context is needed to ensure 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 75%, meaning most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. It does not explain the purpose or constraints of parameters like 'wait' or 'timeout_ms' in relation to the task creation process.

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 Kling task), the specific resource (ai avatar), and the return values (task id, status, output URLs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like text_to_video or image_to_video, which focus on other video generation tasks.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring a specific source image or audio format, nor does it clarify when other sibling tools like text_to_video would be more appropriate.

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