compare_videos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that each model result is a separate resumable task (relevant to resume_video), but says nothing about cost multiplication across models, latency, failure handling for a partial model list, or where artifacts land.

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?

Two short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and no filler. Tight, though the second sentence is a parameter note rather than structure that helps scanning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the resumable-task note fills some behavioral gap. But for a 7-parameter generation tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the definition leaves too much undocumented to be considered complete.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and it only does so for one: models is clarified as a comma-separated list of model IDs. prompt is implied, but name, ratio, duration_s, output_dir, and resolution get no explanation of format, defaults, or constraints anywhere.

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 names a specific action and resource: submit one prompt to 2–3 models to produce a comparison, with each output being a separate resumable task. That distinguishes it from the single-model generate_video sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'For comparison' implies when to reach for this over generate_video, but no explicit condition, prerequisite, or exclusion is stated. An agent must infer that this is the multi-model, higher-cost path rather than the default.

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