submit_script2video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the asynchronous nature (returns immediately, poll for progress) but omits other critical traits like destructiveness, authentication needs, rate limits, or error states.

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 two sentences, front-loads the action ('Submit'), and wastes no words. It is efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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 (5 undocumented parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not explain return values beyond job_id, parameter roles, error handling, or lifecycle details, leaving large gaps for an agent.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% coverage (no descriptions), and the tool description does not explain any parameter meanings or defaults. Only 'script' is implied by the tool name, but parameters like 'user_requirement', 'style', 'profile', and 'job_id' are left completely undefined.

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 submits a script-to-video job and returns a job_id immediately, indicating a clear action. It differentiates from the sibling 'submit_idea2video' by specifying 'script' as input, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 a use case: when you have a script to convert to video. It also advises polling 'get_job_status' for progress. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives like 'submit_idea2video', limiting its completeness.

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