motion_control

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states that the tool creates a task and returns an ID, status, and URLs. There is no disclosure about destructive actions, authorization requirements, rate limits, or whether the task is synchronous or asynchronous beyond the wait parameter in the schema.

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 sentence and very concise. However, conciseness is slightly compromised by underspecification; it could be a bit more informative without becoming verbose.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It fails to cover important contextual details such as the lifecycle of the task, expected behavior, or error handling.

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 high (82%), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it does not explain any parameters. For this score, it is adequate given the schema's own descriptions.

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 a Kling task specifically for motion control, and mentions the output (task id, status, output URLs). However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like image_to_video or text_to_video, which are also 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as image_to_video or text_to_video. The description does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or context where this tool should be preferred.

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