image_to_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing the return shape (task id, status, output URLs) despite there being no output schema, and it identifies the external RunAPI service. However it omits cost, async/polling behavior, permission needs, and what happens on timeout or failure.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and service, with the return contract last. No filler or redundancy.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it says nothing about the wait/poll to terminal status, timeout_ms, poll_interval_ms, callback_url, or model slug selection, all of which materially affect invocation. Only the return payload is covered.

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 80%, so the schema largely documents the parameters itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond implying a source image; the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Midjourney task ... image to video') and names the backing service (RunAPI). The parenthetical scopes it to the image-to-video transform, which distinguishes it from text_to_image and extend_video among siblings, though it does not name those alternatives directly.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus its siblings (extend_video, text_to_image, edit_image) or versus get_task for polling. The '(image to video)' hint implies a use case but gives no explicit selection criteria or prerequisites.

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