image_to_video_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (generating a shot plan) and mentions two specific content elements (motion hierarchy, iteration checks), offering some transparency. However, it does not clarify how the plan is presented, whether any state is changed, or what 'iteration checks' entail exactly.

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 states the action, target, and key deliverables without extraneous words. It earns its place by conveying purpose and essential output features efficiently.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is adequate but minimal. It names the output components but does not explain how the plan relates to subsequent steps (e.g., building a prompt), nor does it elaborate on the input parameters or expected plan structure. It is sufficiently complete for a straightforward planning tool but leaves gaps in workflow integration.

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 60%, so the schema already documents the required parameters 'goal' and 'image_description,' plus the optional 'end_frame_description.' The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, and parameters like aspect_ratio and duration_seconds lack narrative explanations. The mention of 'motion hierarchy' and 'iteration checks' relates to output, not parameters.

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 'Create' and identifies a clear deliverable: 'concise shot plan for turning a still image into a short video.' It further differentiates from siblings by mentioning 'motion hierarchy and iteration checks,' which are planning-specific outputs distinct from building a prompt or getting started.

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 a planning workflow ('Create a concise shot plan') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools image_to_video_build_prompt or image_to_video_get_started. There are no exclusions or alternative guidance, making it only implicitly contextually relevant.

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