veo_text_to_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It mentions that the tool 'creates a video from scratch' and returns a 'Task ID and generated video information including URLs and state,' which implies asynchronous behavior, but it does not explicitly state that generation is non-blocking or that polling is required. It also fails to mention authentication, rate limits, or costs. The description gives some context but misses key behavioral traits for a 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 well-structured with a clear opening, a 'Use this when' bullet list, and a 'Returns' section. It is concise—two paragraphs plus bullets—and front-loaded with the main purpose. The only minor inefficiency is that the first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but overall it earns its place without excessive verbosity.

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 complexity (6 parameters, video generation, potential async), the description covers the usage context and alternatives well, but it lacks explicit details on asynchronous workflow (polling vs. callback), any limitations, and does not describe the output schema beyond a one-line mention of 'Task ID and generated video information including URLs and state.' Since there is no output schema provided and no annotations, the description should compensate more by explaining the async nature and return structure in detail.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema's already detailed field descriptions (e.g., examples for prompt, model variant differences, resolution options). While the description mentions 'maximum creative freedom' which relates to prompt usage, it doesn't elaborate on any parameter behavior that the schema doesn't already cover. Thus, it adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Generate AI video from a text prompt using Veo.' It uses a specific verb ('generate') and resource (text prompt → video), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool veo_image_to_video by explicitly noting the alternative for image-based generation. The use-case bullets further clarify the intended scope.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance with a 'Use this when' list that details appropriate scenarios (creating video from text, no reference image, maximum creative freedom). It also gives a direct exclusion and alternative: 'For video generation starting from an image, use veo_image_to_video instead.' This clearly differentiates from the sibling tool.

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