Generate a finished AI short video

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

Annotations already indicate mutability and open-world side effects; the description adds substantial context: credit costs by provider, rate-limit 429 behavior, image hosting prerequisites, the muted ShortSpec scene plus voiceover/caption processing, and the 'draft' capability meaning content cannot reach an audience alone. This goes well beyond the annotations and provides clear behavioral expectations. No contradiction found.

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 quite long and includes tangential writing-style guidance (em-dashes, hashtags, voice matching) not directly related to invoking this tool. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and genre breakdown, but not every sentence earns its place, making it heavier than necessary for an agent to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the primary return value (hosted mp4 publicUrl), the full media upload workflow, credit costs, and rate limit behavior. However, it does not specify whether generation is asynchronous or list all possible response fields, leaving some gaps for a complex tool with 20 parameters.

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 coverage is high (90%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds genre-specific semantics for parameters: imageUrl is explicitly REQUIRED for asmr_loop, referenceImageUrls are for character_series consistency, timerLine for pov_historical, and provider routing/credit costs. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's own field descriptions.

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 a specific action ('Generate a FINISHED, PUBLISHABLE vertical (9:16) short video') and output ('hosted mp4 publicUrl'), distinguishing it from siblings by describing the full production pipeline (voiceover, karaoke captions, ffmpeg assembly). It differentiates from other content tools by emphasizing the finished, publishable result and the workflow with schedule_post.

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 workflow guidance: call prompt_suggest first, prepare images via prepare_media_upload, and pass the resulting publicUrl into schedule_post. It also states when to use each genre and when to override the provider, and notes the draft-only capability. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like shorts_generate, so it stops short of full exclusion criteria.

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