generate_video

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 indicates the tool 'prepares and locks' a route, which implies it may not immediately generate video, but it does not clarify side effects, cost implications, or whether the route is actually executed. The description leaves key behavioral questions unanswered.

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 sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally efficient. However, it is too under-specified to be truly useful; conciseness here comes at the expense of clarity. Front-loading is fine, but the content itself is thin.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It lacks guidance on required prompt semantics, how size/quality/seconds affect output, what allow_paid controls, and what locking a route entails. For a tool with five parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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%, and the description does not mention any parameters. With five parameters including prompt, size, quality, seconds, and allow_paid, the description provides no meaning beyond the raw schema field names. This is a complete miss for parameter semantics.

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 says 'Prepare and lock an official video-generation route before execution,' which is vague about what the tool actually does. It is unclear whether this tool generates a video, locks a route, or merely prepares one for later execution. The verb and resource are present but the overall meaning is ambiguous and does not clearly distinguish it from siblings like generate_image or route_task.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention whether it should be used before other pipeline tools, whether it requires prior setup, or what conditions would make it inappropriate. The phrase 'before execution' hints at sequencing, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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