agnes_video_submit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the automatic alignment of num_frames to the 8n+1 rule and support for keyframe animation via extra_body, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The additional behavioral notes are useful, though the num_frames reference is extraneous and potentially confusing.

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 9 parameters with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It covers the return value and three modes, but leaves most parameters opaque and does not integrate with sibling workflow tools.

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 has no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains the image parameter for image-to-video and extra_body for keyframe mode, but leaves many parameters like duration, frame_rate, and aspect_ratio unexplained. It also references 'num_frames' which is not a parameter in the schema, creating confusion.

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 uses a specific verb 'Submit' and resource 'Agnes video task', and clearly states the return of a video id for polling. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agnes_video_status which likely only checks status.

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 implies the workflow of submitting a task and then polling status, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus agnes_video_generate or exclude any alternatives.

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