generate_complete_foxbrizio_video

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

The description only mentions possible timeout and that it's legacy. With no annotations provided, the description should carry full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to state that generation creates a new resource (implied by 'complete video'), any destructive actions, authorization needs, or what happens on timeout. The information is minimal.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, with no wasted words. It front-loads the most critical information (LEGACY, alternative tool, timeout warning). Every word serves a purpose.

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 (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description leaves significant gaps. It doesn't explain return behavior, what happens on timeout, or how this differs from start_video_generation beyond being legacy. The sibling tool start_video_generation exists but differences aren't explained. The timeout warning is useful but insufficient for a generation tool.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no clarification on when audio_path is needed or how generate_caption affects output). Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 generates a complete video, flags it as LEGACY, and directs the agent to use 'start_video_generation' instead. The verb+resource (Genera video completo) is specific, though it lacks differentiation from start_video_generation beyond being legacy.

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 notes this is legacy and provides the alternative tool to use ('start_video_generation'). It also warns about potential timeout. This gives clear guidance against using this tool unless necessary, but no when-not-to-use details beyond legacy status.

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