producer_generate_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a callback_url hinting at async behavior but does not confirm synchronicity, typical durations, auth requirements, or potential side effects. For a generative tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main action, then usage bullets, then output. No unnecessary sentences. However, the 'Returns:' line could be integrated into the first paragraph for even tighter structure. Still efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the key points: what it does, when to use, and what it returns. It could mention that audio_id must come from a previous generation, but the param description already does that. Reasonably 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 description coverage is 100%, and the input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no additional detail beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 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 verb+resource: 'Generate a video for a previously generated song.' It specifies the input is a generated audio track and mentions output as Task ID and video generation info. The 'Use this when' bullets further clarify purpose. This distinguishes it from siblings which focus on music generation, covers, etc.

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 explicit 'Use this when' conditions with three use cases. It gives clear context for when to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative sibling tools. This is a minor gap, hence 4.

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