animate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that the operation is paid, estimates cost first, refuses over-budget jobs, and resumes submitted jobs rather than charging twice. It does not cover permissions, error behavior for invalid inputs, or return mechanics beyond the resulting asset id.

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 compact and front-loaded: first the transformation and duration, then camera options, then cost behavior. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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?

The description is substantial for a tool with no annotations and no output schema, especially around paid-job behavior. It is still incomplete for a six-parameter tool because it omits `project`, does not clarify whether `id` is an input or the produced asset identifier, and does not explain async or return behavior beyond the video asset id.

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 0%, so the description must document six parameters. It explains image_asset, motion, camera options and default, and the 2–12 second duration range, but leaves the required `project` parameter undocumented and makes the required `id` parameter ambiguous by describing it as the resulting asset.

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 and resource: turning an image asset into a short silent video asset with motion. It is clearly distinct from siblings like edit, draw, capture, or render, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling to disambiguate further.

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?

Usage is implied by the description of animating an image, and the cost behavior gives useful context for when calling is safe. However, it does not state when to use this versus alternatives such as render or edit, nor does it describe exclusions or prerequisites.

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