minimax_generate_video_from_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It omits any mention of async processing, callback/polling mechanisms, rate limits, or output handling. This is a significant gap for a task-based API.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff, which is concise. However, it is arguably underspecified for the tool's complexity, but that shortcoming is not a conciseness issue.

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 and the input schema is fully described, the description omits key workflow details like whether the call is asynchronous, how results are retrieved, and how the callback URL is used. It is essentially just a label for the 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'MiniMax H3 video', and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying 'guided by reference audio'. It is unambiguous about the tool's function.

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 implies usage when the user has reference audio, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the text or image generation siblings. No exclusions or alternative names are given.

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