generate_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the job is long-running (up to an hour) and that regeneration is discouraged, which is real operational context. But it omits cost implications, auth requirements, and whether the submission is blocking or returns an id.

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 no filler, and the most important fact (up to an hour, don't regenerate) is front-loaded. Slightly terse on what the submission returns, but no wasted words.

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, but the four input parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, and the relationship to estimate_cost (cost estimation before generating) is unmentioned. For a generation tool this leaves too much uncovered.

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% for four parameters (prompt, output, duration_s, resolution), and the description adds nothing about any of them — no prompt format, duration limits, or valid resolutions. This is a significant gap the description should have compensated for.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: submit a video generation. Given the tool name, an agent can tell this creates a new job while resume_video continues an existing one. No explicit sibling differentiation in the text, but the action is unambiguous.

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 one clear behavioral guardrail ('if the result is unclear, check the original task first; never regenerate automatically'), which is genuine when-not guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over resume_video or estimate_cost, leaving the routing decisions to inference.

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