generate_avatar_video

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

Without annotations, the description details asynchronous processing (30-120 seconds), polling parameters, and return value (download URL/error). It lacks permissions or side effects but covers key behavioral aspects adequately.

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 well-structured with headings, lists, and front-loaded purpose. It is lengthier than minimal but each sentence adds value given the parameter complexity.

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 7 parameters, required script only, and no formal output schema, the description covers inputs, async behavior, and return. It misses explicit permissions but is otherwise complete for a generative video 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's role, mutual exclusivity, defaults, and providing concrete stock avatar/voice IDs. This adds meaning beyond the 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 generates an avatar video from a text script, creating an MP4. It distinguishes from sibling tools focusing on avatar creation or meetings, as it specifically generates video content.

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 context on when to use (for video generation) and includes internal testing note with support contact. It guides parameter usage (persona_id vs avatar_id+voice_id) but does not explicitly compare to alternative sibling tools.

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