generate_video

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a write operation. The description adds that it 'generates' a video ad, which aligns with the destructive hint. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply—such as whether this creates a permanent asset, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output looks like. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds minimal value beyond confirming the operation type.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the core functionality and one providing usage context. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the second sentence could be more tightly integrated, and there's minor redundancy in listing providers when the schema already covers them.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, destructive operation) and lack of output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the what and some context but lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error handling, or output format. With annotations providing safety info and schema covering parameters, it's adequate but has clear gaps for a generative AI tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the concept frameworks or provider differences). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra semantic context.

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 an AI video ad using Veo, Runway, or Luma.' It specifies the action (generate), resource (AI video ad), and technology options. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_image' beyond mentioning video vs. image, and the 'Great for YouTube and social ads' is helpful context but not strict differentiation.

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 some usage context with 'Great for YouTube and social ads,' which implies when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'generate_image' or other campaign creation tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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