generate_video_v2

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'highest quality' and basic constraints (5-15 seconds, up to 1440p), but doesn't disclose important behaviors like whether this is an async operation (implied by sibling status-check tools), rate limits, authentication needs, cost implications, or what the output looks like. For a complex video generation tool with 9 parameters, this is inadequate.

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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be more concise by removing redundant information already in the schema (duration/resolution constraints) and focusing on unique value propositions.

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?

For a complex video generation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the async nature (implied by sibling status tools), output format, error conditions, or important behavioral constraints. The description should provide more context about what happens after invocation and what to expect.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions duration range (5-15 seconds) and resolution cap (1440p) which are already in the schema, and doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Generate a video'), identifies the resource ('using TensorsLab SeeDance V2 model'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'highest quality' and duration/resolution constraints that differentiate it from tools like generate_video_fast and generate_video_v15pro.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_video_fast or generate_video_v15pro. It mentions 'highest quality' but doesn't explain trade-offs or when other tools might be more appropriate. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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