minimax_generate_video_from_text

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 only states the basic action and input, but does not disclose important behavior such as asynchronous processing, task ID return, polling requirements, or the meaning of the optional callback_url. This is a significant gap 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the tool's purpose and input modality, earning its place.

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?

The schema is rich (5 parameters, 100% coverage) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks crucial workflow context such as whether generation is asynchronous, how to retrieve results, or the role of callback_url. For a complex generation tool with no annotations, this is a clear 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond identifying the input as a text prompt, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names the exact resource ('MiniMax H3 video from a text prompt'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like minimax_generate_video_from_images and minimax_generate_video_from_audio by specifying the input modality.

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 clearly states the use case: generating a video from text. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, the phrase 'from a text prompt' sets clear context and differentiates it from sibling tools that generate from images or audio.

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