motion_control

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return payload (task id, status, output URLs), which signals an asynchronous job pattern consistent with the wait/callback_url params. It says nothing about authentication against RunAPI, cost, latency, rate limits, or failure/error behavior for what is clearly an external paid API call.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and platform, then the return shape. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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 10-parameter task-creation tool with no output schema, the description adequately signals what comes back, and the schema covers most inputs. It omits the operational context an agent would want before firing a costly asynchronous job — authentication, what a non-terminal status means, and whether waiting is the default path.

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 80% with 10 parameters, so the schema already documents most inputs, making the baseline 3 appropriate. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no guidance on prompt, model slug, character_orientation, or how wait interacts with callback_url), so it neither compensates for nor extends 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a Kling task on RunAPI (motion control)') and identifies the model line, which separates it from image_to_video, text_to_video, and extend_video. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer over it, but the motion-control framing implies a source image plus reference video.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the eight sibling tools. The agent must infer from the required source_image_url/reference_video_url that this is motion transfer, but nothing tells it when this is the right choice versus image_to_video.

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