image_to_video_build_prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states that the tool 'builds' a prompt. It does not mention the output format, whether the tool generates a string, or how it processes inputs. This minimal disclosure adds little beyond the tool name, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 identifies the action, the output, and the key input categories. Every word contributes meaningful information with no fluff or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. It clarifies the tool's purpose but does not explain what the generated prompt looks like or how parameters are combined. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The input schema provides 100% descriptive coverage for all 8 parameters, meeting the baseline. The description groups parameters into categories (e.g., 'constraints' corresponds to 'avoid'), but it does not introduce new semantic meaning or explain parameter interactions beyond what the schema already offers.

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 uses a specific verb 'Build' and identifies the resource as a 'production-ready image-to-video prompt', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like image_to_video_plan or image_to_video_get_started. It explicitly lists the key input categories (subject, motion, environment, camera, lighting, timing, constraints), making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 this tool is for constructing the final prompt from given components, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of planning or getting started. It provides clear context (building a production-ready prompt) but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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