generate_video_from_image

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond 'generates a video'. Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of disclosing the paid-generation flow, cost confirmation, and async wait behavior — none of which appear in the description. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also fails to add behavioral context.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core concept front-loaded ('图生视频') and zero wasted words. It is economically written, though arguably too terse for a tool with 7 parameters and a paid-generation workflow.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and a rich behavioral workflow (confirm-before-payment, wait/task_id async mode, tier selection, resolution auto-upgrade), the one-line description is insufficient. The schema partially compensates, but the description alone leaves an agent unaware of cost confirmation and asynchronous submission dynamics.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase '以图片为首帧' aligns with the image parameter's meaning but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already documents for the seven parameters. It neither compensates for gaps nor introduces confusion.

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 '图生视频：以图片为首帧生成视频' clearly states the verb (generate), the resource (video), and the key constraint (image as the first frame). This implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling generate_image (image generation) and generate_video (likely text-to-video), though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 '图生视频' (image-to-video) prefix implies the use case: generating video when an image is available as the starting frame. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over the sibling generate_video, no exclusions, and no prerequisites such as the confirm=true requirement or cost check.

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