For FREE accounts only: after the user upgrades, render a video that was returned as status "preview". Charges run on the same project (the first video after upgrading is free). If the video is already rendering/complete, returns its current state. If the account is still free, returns an upgrade_required error with an upgrade link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The preview video id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
In the absence of annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: charges run on same project, first video free, returns state if already rendering, returns upgrade_required error for free accounts. No contradictions.
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 concise, front-loaded with the key condition, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.
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 single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers all scenarios (upgraded, already rendering, still free). It is complete for the tool's complexity.
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 100% with a clear description for the 'id' parameter. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool renders a preview video for upgraded free accounts. It specifies the video must have status 'preview', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_auto_video or get_video.
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 provides explicit context: only for free accounts after upgrade, and returns current state if already rendering/complete. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it compared to siblings, though the conditions imply specific scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose. There is no overlap between tools like check_account and check_configuration, or between the two create video modes. All list tools target different entities, and the remaining tools serve unique roles (estimate credits, get video, wait for video, render preview).
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as check_account, create_auto_video, list_models. This makes it easy to predict tool names and understand their purpose.
With 13 tools, the number is well-scoped for a video generation API. It covers setup, account management, creation (two modes), credit estimation, retrieval, listing of various resources, and video waiting. No tool feels redundant or missing.
The tool surface covers the core workflow well: configuration check, account info, video creation (both auto and manual), credit estimation, retrieval, and listing. However, there are no tools for updating or deleting videos, nor for managing resources beyond listing (e.g., creating avatars or brand kits). These are minor gaps.
