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

Discloses key behaviors: async return with video id and status ('processing' vs 'preview'), automatic idempotency-key handling, and rendering requiring premium plan and credits. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and handles it well.

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?

Efficient three-sentence description that front-loads the core action. Each sentence adds value, though a bullet structure could improve readability for the workflow details.

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?

Covers the async nature, plan restrictions, next steps, and idempotency. Missing parameter details and error handling, but given the complexity and lack of output schema, it provides a solid overview.

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 67%, and the description adds minimal new parameter context beyond the schema (e.g., brand_kit_id from list_brand_kits). It does not explain folder_id, name, or orientation, which remain undocumented.

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 it creates a video in AUTO mode where Vivideo handles scripting and production. It distinguishes from manual mode via sibling context and uses specific verbs ('creates', 'returns', 'call').

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context: for fully automatic video generation from a prompt. Mentions next steps (call wait_for_video or get_video) and plan requirements, but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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