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 of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool blocks until completion, may hit client timeouts, supports configurable poll_interval and timeout_seconds, and that on timeout the agent should reuse video_id with query_video. This is substantial and actionable behavioral context.

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 key information is front-loaded and logically organized, but the same guidance is repeated in Chinese and English multiple times. While the bilingual presentation may help some users, it adds redundancy; not every sentence earns 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?

For a 13-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: when to use it, how it behaves, what to do on timeout, and which alternative to prefer. It does not detail the return value, but the mention of reusing video_id via query_video gives enough follow-up direction.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It does explain the two additional parameters poll_interval and timeout_seconds, and it routes all other parameters to create_video via 'Same params as create_video'. However, it does not describe the individual meanings of mode, seed, images, audios, or other fields, relying on a sibling tool's documentation.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Create a video task and block-poll until completed/failed'. It clearly labels itself as a compatibility tool and distinguishes its synchronous behavior from the preferred async sibling create_video. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from the alternatives.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it recommends create_video + query_video for general use and reserves generate_video for users explicitly asking for '一步到位 / 直接等视频结果' or 'agnes generate video sync'. This is strong, unambiguous routing to the correct sibling tool.

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