generate_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses latency ('takes 1-6 minutes') and model options with the latest flagged. However, it omits output behavior, authentication requirements, and post-generation steps such as polling or checking video history.

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 three tight, front-loaded sentences covering purpose, modes, latency, and model availability. There is no filler, and every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 9-parameter, long-running generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits what happens after generation: where the video is saved, whether the call is asynchronous, and how to retrieve the result. The sibling list_video_history hints at the missing flow, but the description itself is incomplete.

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%, and the schema already documents defaults and parameter relationships (e.g., lastFramePath requires imagePath). The description mostly restates model names and modes that appear in the schema, adding minimal new parameter-level semantics.

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: 'Generate a video from a text prompt using Gemini Veo.' It also enumerates supported modes (text-to-video, image-to-video, first+last frame), which clearly distinguishes it from image-generation siblings like generate_image.

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 establishes clear context by framing the tool as video generation and listing the supported generation modes. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the video-vs-image distinction is strongly implied.

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