speech_to_video

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

The description mentions that it creates a task and returns outputs, but with no annotations, it fails to disclose important behaviors such as rate limits, costs, or side effects like task lifecycle. The description is too sparse for a mutation tool.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded. However, it could benefit from a more structured format listing parameters.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the role of key parameters, required inputs, or expected behavior, leaving many gaps for the agent.

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 25% (2 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description provides no additional information about parameters like 'prompt', 'source_audio_url', or 'output_resolution', leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill these fields.

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', and the modality 'speech to video', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'text_to_video' and 'image_to_video'.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or compare with similar tools like 'animate' or 'edit_video'.

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