generate_video

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

Discloses async polling, saving to projectDir, and support for text/image-to-video. With no annotations, this carries full burden, but it omits details like return value (task ID?), error handling, authentication, or failure behavior, leaving gaps.

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?

Description is a single concise paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then details, then user guidance. It is appropriately sized but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for clarity.

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?

Covers async nature, output path, modes, and user interaction. However, with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, it misses critical details like what the tool returns (task reference) and how to handle errors or check progress, making it only moderately complete.

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 covers all 8 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds practical tips for projectDir (use pwd) and fileName (meaningful English name), and clarifies outputSubdir defaults and usage, enhancing usability beyond schema.

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 it submits an asynchronous video generation task that saves to local directory, and mentions text-to-video and image-to-video modes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like generate_image, but the unique verb 'generate_video' and async nature suffice.

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 guidance on the async nature and instructs the agent to ask the user about tracking progress. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., generate_image) and does not mention limitations or prerequisites.

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