generate_video

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it runs on local GPU, requires LTX-2.3 models, provides actionable errors for missing checkpoints, describes the frame count formula, explains the strength parameter effect, notes the omission of audio/upscale, and details output behavior (returns prompt_id immediately, writes to output/video/). No contradictions.

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 the purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds value, covering prerequisites, usage modes, parameter details, and output handling. It is fairly concise given the technical depth, though slightly long but appropriate.

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?

The description covers all necessary context: prerequisites (model installation), input modes, parameter explanations, output behavior (prompt_id, file location), and how to retrieve the video. Despite missing output schema, it provides sufficient information for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, but the description adds significant value by explaining defaults (e.g., cfg=1.0, steps=8, strength=0.6), usage tips (e.g., 'keep ~0.6'), and the seconds-to-frames conversion. This enhances understanding 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 the tool's purpose: 'Generate a short video from a text prompt (text-to-video), or animate a start image (image-to-video when `image` is given)'. It differentiates itself from siblings like generate_audio and generate_image by specifying video generation and being the high-level entry point.

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 usage guidance by explaining when to use it (text-to-video or image-to-video), mentions that it's a minimal path without audio/upscale, and suggests using list_output_images to find the video. It does not explicitly compare to siblings but the context is clear.

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