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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the input and duration but does not mention whether generation is asynchronous, how long it may take, what output format is returned, whether there are usage limits, or any side effects. For a generation tool this is a significant transparency gap.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key constraint. It earns its place with no wasted words, though the word 'short' introduces ambiguity against the tool name 'long'.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values, processing behavior, supported models, and optional parameters. It does none of these. The tool is simple enough that the missing details matter for correct invocation and expectation-setting.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate for the three parameters. It only adds meaning for 'prompt' by calling it a 'text prompt'; 'model' and 'duration_seconds' receive no explanation beyond what the schema already shows. The duration range is helpful but incomplete.

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 clearly states the action ('generate'), the resource ('AI video'), and the input ('from a text prompt'), with a specific duration range. However, it calls the video 'short' despite the tool being named 'long', and it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling variants 'post_media_video_generate_short' and 'post_media_video_generate_medium'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling video generation tools. An agent cannot determine whether to pick long, medium, or short based on duration or context, because the description only provides the duration range without linking it to the tool's name or alternatives.

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