generate_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it discloses no behavioral traits such as account requirements, credit consumption, processing time, or return format. The tool name and sibling context suggest it is a generator, but safety/impact details are absent.

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?

A single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the action (Generate) and resource (AI video), then adds model context. No wasted words.

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?

Despite 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not mention the need for a connected account (despite an account parameter), asynchronous nature, or what the response includes. The description is too sparse for a complex 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?

The schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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 states 'Generate an AI video from text' with specific verb and resource, and mentions Google Flow and models. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling generate_video_from_image by specifying text input.

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 phrase 'from text' clearly indicates the input modality and implies it is for text-to-video, contrasting with image-to-video sibling. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'when not to use'.

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