Video ad from an idea

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

Annotations supply only readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It confirms a generative write but says nothing about the surrounding flow that siblings check_video_status and approve_video_clone imply (async job, approval step, credit/cost, or what happens if the idea is under-specified).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and the input type both land immediately. It is efficient rather than padded, though it is terse enough that it reads as light specification.

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 output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the core call but omits the process context an agent needs to sequence this correctly (long-running generation, status polling, approval). Adequate for the single invocation, incomplete for the workflow it starts.

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?

Zero declared parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is free-form (additionalProperties: true) and the description usefully clarifies that the expected payload is a plain-English idea, reconciling the empty schema with how the tool is actually invoked.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Make a video ad") plus the input modality ("from an idea described in plain English"), which implicitly separates it from clone_from_script and clone_video_ad. It never names the sibling it is distinguished from, so the agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.

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?

Usage is only implied: "from an idea described in plain English" tells the agent the required starting material but not when to prefer this over clone_from_script or clone_video_ad. No when-not conditions, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given.

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