edit_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a task id, status, and output URLs, and implies asynchronous behavior via the wait parameter. However, it fails to explain potential failure modes, whether editing is destructive, or how long tasks may take.

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 single-sentence description is under-specified for a 9-parameter tool with no annotations. It sacrifices completeness for brevity, leaving out critical context about how to use the tool effectively.

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 of the tool (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the editing workflow, required inputs, response handling, or how to interpret outputs beyond basic return values.

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 22%, yet the tool description adds no parameter-level details. The description does not clarify what 'prompt' means for video editing, how to set source_video_url, or the impact of model selection. The agent must rely on the sparse schema 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 identifies the verb ('Create a Wan task') and the resource ('edit video'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like text_to_video or image_to_video that are for generation rather than editing.

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 animate or the other video tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring a source video) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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