image_to_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions returns (task id, status, output URLs) but fails to describe polling behavior, destructive nature, or side effects. The 'wait' param suggests polling, but this is not explained in the description.

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?

Very concise single sentence with no wasted words. However, it could benefit from a bit more structure, e.g., separating input and output details. Still efficient.

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?

No output schema, 10 parameters (1 required), but description lacks context on common use cases, parameter interactions (e.g., 'wait' vs 'callback_url'), or success criteria. The tool is more complex than the description suggests.

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 only 20% (2/10 parameters have descriptions). The description does not clarify any parameters beyond return format, leaving the agent to infer from schema names and types. For a tool with many optional parameters, this is insufficient.

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 it creates a Midjourney task for image-to-video conversion, with specific verb 'Create' and resource 'Midjourney task on RunAPI'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'extend_video' and 'text_to_image' by focusing on image input.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., using 'extend_video' for extending videos). No prerequisites, context, or exclusions provided, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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