image_to_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the return values (task id, status, output URLs) but omits critical details such as whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens to existing tasks. The default polling behavior (implied by wait parameter) is not mentioned.

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 concise at two sentences, with the primary action in the first sentence and the return values in the second. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words.

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's complexity (19 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the main input fields (first_frame_image_url, prompt), the task lifecycle, or how to interpret the return values in conjunction with sibling tools like get_task. More context would be needed for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 high (89%), so the schema itself documents most parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the high-level action. A score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for any gaps in the schema coverage.

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 verb ('Create'), the resource ('Kling task'), and the specific domain ('image to video'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like text_to_video (text to video) and extend_video (extend existing video) by emphasizing the image-to-video focus.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as text_to_video or extend_video. It lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., image URL requirements) or scenarios where the tool is inappropriate.

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