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. It discloses that the tool returns a task ID requiring follow-up with query_video_task, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, costs, or error handling, which are important for a video generation tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, supported features, parameter explanations, return info). It is appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool, though some details like model descriptions could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity of an 8-parameter video generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining functionality, parameters, and the asynchronous result-checking process. It could improve by adding more behavioral context (e.g., execution time, limitations), but it covers the essentials adequately.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters into functional contexts (e.g., model choices explained with quality/speed trade-offs, supported durations/framerates/resolutions listed), which helps the agent understand parameter implications beyond the schema's technical specs.

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 uses the Doubao Seedance model to generate video, with specific supported functionalities listed: text-to-video, image-to-video, and reference-image-to-video. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on video generation (vs. generate_image for images and query_video_task for querying results).

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 clear context for when to use this tool by listing its three supported functionalities, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. It mentions the need to use query_video_task to check results, which is helpful guidance.

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