generate_video

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Generate a video', implying a creation action, but gives no details about whether it is synchronous, requires an API key, costs credits, returns a video URL or job ID, or has rate limits. This is a significant gap for a generation tool.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with a single parameter.

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?

The description is minimal and omits essential context for a generation tool with no output schema. Given sibling 'get_prediction' suggests an async workflow, the description should at least mention whether the tool returns a direct video or a job identifier to be polled. As-is, an agent lacks enough context to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema covers the single 'prompt' parameter with description 'Video generation prompt', achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the baseline for full schema coverage is 3, and the parameter is self-explanatory.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a video using MuAPI' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'image_to_video', which also generates video, and lacks scope details (e.g., text-to-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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like image_to_video or generate_image. It does not mention prerequisites, workflows, or any exclusions, leaving usage decisions entirely to the agent.

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