video_overview_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the need for user approval via 'confirm=True,' which is crucial for a generative tool. However, it lacks details on other behaviors like rate limits, error handling, or what the output entails (though an output schema exists). The description adds value but is incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose and key requirement, followed by a bullet-style 'Args' section. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations.

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 (7 parameters, generative function) and lack of annotations, the description does a solid job. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter semantics. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could improve by mentioning sibling tools or more behavioral details, but it's largely complete for effective use.

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 must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all 7 parameters, explaining their purposes (e.g., 'notebook_id: Notebook UUID,' 'format: explainer|brief'). This goes beyond the bare schema, providing context like enum values for 'visual_style' and language codes. The description effectively clarifies parameter roles, though it could note defaults or optionality more explicitly.

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's purpose: 'Generate video overview.' It specifies the resource (video overview) and verb (generate), making it distinct from siblings like 'audio_overview_create' or 'slide_deck_create.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'report_create' might also generate content), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides clear context for usage: 'Requires confirm=True after user approval.' This indicates when to use it (after approval) and implies a prerequisite (user consent). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the guidance is practical and helpful for safe invocation.

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