producer_generate_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It notes the tool 'creates a video with visualizations' and returns a 'Task ID', implying an asynchronous task-based flow. However, it does not disclose specifics like visual style, duration limits, or polling behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 and concise: a one-line summary, a brief explanation, bulleted usage scenarios, and a returns section. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with a clear output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It doesn't fully explain the async nature or the content of the visualizations, but given the tool's simplicity and existing context, it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond the schema. The phrase 'previously generated song' and the 'Returns' note reinforce that audio_id comes from a prior generation, but this is already stated in the schema's parameter description. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Generate a video for a previously generated song' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on video creation from existing audio, which none of the siblings target.

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 'Use this when' list explicitly provides usage scenarios (video version, sharing on video platforms, visual representation). It lacks explicit mention of when not to use or comparison to alternatives, but the context is clear enough to apply the tool correctly among its siblings.

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