create_text_video

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the action and the content. It does not disclose output-file behavior, overwrite semantics, or any side effects.

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 one-sentence description is compact and front-loaded with no filler. However, for an 8-parameter tool it is too thin to be considered appropriately sized, so it is not more than adequate.

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?

With no annotations, no parameter documentation, and a large sibling list, a 9-word description cannot support correct selection and invocation. The output schema may cover return values, but the agent still lacks usage alternatives and parameter meaning.

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% and the description mentions none of the 8 parameters. It only hints that the text is centered, which does not clarify width, height, duration, colors, font size, or output_path.

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 states the tool creates a complete video with centered text, a specific verb and resource. It is clear enough about the high-level purpose but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like create_animated_text or create_typing_text_video.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The description does not explain whether to pick this over create_animated_text, create_typing_text_video, or add_text, so an agent must infer use on its own.

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