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

The description discloses key behaviors: operation inferred from inputs (image_url triggers image-to-video), constraints on resolution/duration/aspect_ratio, automatic idempotency handling, and return of video id and status. With no annotations, it covers essential aspects, though auth and rate limits are omitted.

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 concise paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and flows logically to constraints and follow-up. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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's complexity (13 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers creation flow, constraints, idempotency, and next steps. It is fairly complete but could elaborate on error handling for all parameters.

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 only 23%, so the description adds meaning for key parameters like model, image_url, and constraints on resolution/duration. However, many parameters (e.g., style, negative_prompt) are unexplained, leaving gaps.

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 'MANUAL mode' by sending a prompt to a specific model, distinguishing from 'create_auto_video' by emphasizing manual control and mentioning image_url for image-to-video variant.

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 says to get model ids from list_models, notes that invalid values return a 400 listing allowed values, and suggests subsequent use of wait_for_video or get_video. It provides clear context for when to use this tool, but does not explicitly exclude cases like automatic generation.

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