flux_generate_video

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the async/polling implication and warns that draft availability is temporary, which is real behavioral value, but it says nothing about auth/permissions, cost, rate limits, or what async=false does.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the capability and ending with the follow-up action. No filler. Slightly compressed phrasing ('owned temporary draft') costs a little clarity.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the polling hint covers the async lifecycle. However, the four-way oneOf with zero schema descriptions and no textual explanation of mode-specific required fields leaves genuine gaps for a fairly complex tool.

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?

Only one top-level parameter ('request'), but it is a oneOf over four nested request shapes with 0% description coverage, so the schema supplies no prose. The description sketches the mode space but does not explain per-mode requirements (keyframes, start_video, duration caps, safety_tolerance).

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?

States a clear verb+resource (generate video) and enumerates the supported input modes (text/image/video-to-video) plus the draft-enhance variant, which maps onto the schema's mode discriminator. It distinguishes the tool from flux_generate_image, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Poll flux_get_task' gives useful post-call guidance for the default async flow, but the description never says when to pick draft_enhance versus a generate mode, or when async=false is appropriate. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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