animate

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions the return values ('task id, status, and output URLs'). It does not explain that this is an asynchronous task creation, how the 'wait' parameter affects execution, whether it modifies resources, or any rate limits or safety implications. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point. It efficiently states the action and the primary return values without filler. However, given the tool's complexity, the brevity may be excessive, but as a concise statement it earns a high score.

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?

This is a 9-parameter task-creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description is only one sentence. It does not cover input/output details, asynchronous behavior, or any operational context. For a tool of this complexity, the description is completely inadequate, leaving the agent without essential information to invoke it correctly.

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?

The description provides zero information about the 9 parameters, and schema description coverage is only 22%. It does not explain the required parameters (source_image_url, reference_video_url) or options like output_resolution, model, or wait. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameter meaning largely undocumented.

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's action: 'Create a Wan task on RunAPI (animate)' and specifies the return values: 'task id, status, and output URLs.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like text_to_video or image_to_video by emphasizing the Wan model and animation focus, though it could be more explicit about the animation-specific use case.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like image_to_video or text_to_video. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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