generate_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the critical trait that generation may take up to an hour, plus a warning against automatic regeneration. It omits cost implications, whether the call returns immediately with a task handle versus blocking, and whether any permission or key setup is needed.

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?

It is compact and front-loads the action, which is good. But the semicolon-chained clauses mix purpose, model enumeration, latency, and error handling in one breath, and the model list adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 explained, and latency is covered. For a long-running generation tool with 0% parameter documentation, the definition is still thin on async handling, cost, and how to follow up a submitted job, which is exactly where an agent is most likely to err.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It names model family variants ('Wan 3.0 / Prime, Seedance 2.0 Fast / 2.5, or kling v3') that do not obviously map to the schema default 'wan3.0-video', and it says nothing about output, duration_s, or resolution.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource ('Submit a generation') and enumerates the selectable models, which maps to the model parameter. It partially differentiates from siblings by pointing at list_models, but never distinguishes this tool from resume_video or storyboard, which an agent could plausibly confuse with video generation.

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?

It gives real procedural guidance ('if the result is unclear, check the original task first; never regenerate automatically') and routes to list_models for model details. However, it offers no criteria for choosing this tool over resume_video, storyboard, or compare_videos, so the main when-to-use decision is left implicit.

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