generate_video

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 usefully discloses the tool's inputs and role, but it does not mention side effects, long-running behavior, output format, or how the force parameter interacts with existing videos. This is helpful but incomplete.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds pipeline context without redundancy.

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 covers all parameter semantics, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description names dependencies and pipeline position, but does not clarify whether the operation is asynchronous, how results are returned, or how failures are surfaced. It is adequate but not fully 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond that; 'from rendered slides and TTS audio' provides context but does not explain fps, force, resolution, or project_id behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Compile the final video from rendered slides and TTS audio.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like render_slides and generate_tts by identifying itself as the final pipeline step.

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 explicitly says 'This is the last step in the pipeline,' which implies it should be used only after render_slides and generate_tts have produced their outputs. It does not name alternatives or state explicit exclusions, but the pipeline context provides clear usage direction.

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