Image 3D effect

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not destructive, and not open-world. The description adds that the output is a video, which is useful but does not cover asynchronous behavior, expected processing time, or any file/asset lifecycle implications.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and result, with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter effect tool with an output schema and explicit annotations, the description is largely sufficient to invoke correctly. It could be more complete by mentioning whether the generated video is synchronous or asynchronous and by routing users away from similar sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single parameter is already fully documented as 'Source image file id.' The description adds no extra meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, which is appropriate but not enriching.

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 names a specific verb and transformation: 'Add 3D parallax motion to a still image, producing a video.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from generic image or video generation siblings by specifying the input type and the effect applied.

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 its use case but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not tell the agent when this effect is preferable to sibling tools like generate_video_clip or generate_motion_graphic.

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