animate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the async nature implicitly via the wait parameter but does not disclose rate limits, costs, or the fact that source_image_url may be required for some models. The description does not explain what happens to existing tasks or how to interpret statuses.

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?

Description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose and return type, but misses the opportunity to provide organized details about parameters or behavior.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the Wan task concept, required inputs, or output format, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly without additional knowledge.

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 29% (two of seven parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema. Key parameters like source_image_url, output_resolution, and reference_video_url are left undocumented in the description.

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates a Wan task on RunAPI and returns task id, status, and output URLs. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like image_to_video or text_to_video, relying on the parenthetical 'animate' which may be ambiguous without context.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., text_to_video, image_to_video). The description lacks any usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.

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