image_to_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions creating a task and returning a task id, status, and output URLs, hinting at asynchronous behavior, but fails to disclose auth requirements, side effects, cost implications, or the nature of the task creation. This is minimal and leaves critical behavioral questions unanswered.

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 efficiently communicates the tool's core action and return value. It contains no unnecessary verbiage, though its brevity comes at the cost of substance. As a concise statement, it is appropriately sized, but not particularly detailed.

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 tool with 23 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. It explains almost nothing about the task lifecycle, required inputs, available models, or result structure. Agents would be left guessing about how to properly invoke and interpret the tool.

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 9% (2 of 23 parameters described). The description adds no parameter details whatsoever, leaving the agent without any understanding of key parameters like prompt, seed, aspect_ratio, or output_resolution. The description fails to compensate for the sparse schema information.

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 verb 'Create', the resource 'Wan task on RunAPI', and the specific scope '(image to video)'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like text_to_video and speech_to_video through the explicit image-to-video parenthetical.

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 implies the primary use case (image-to-video generation) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like text_to_video or speech_to_video. It lacks mention of exclusions or alternative tool recommendations.

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