script_to_video

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Generate a video from a script', omitting important details such as what the tool creates (e.g., a new asset), whether it modifies existing resources, any destructive capabilities, or return behavior.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but such brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. It could benefit from a brief overview of key parameters or workflow.

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 (12 nested parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output, variations, or dependencies, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 50%, yet the description does not explain the nested 'payload' structure or key parameters like 'tone', 'format', or 'voice_id'. The schema descriptions partially cover some parameters, but the tool description fails to compensate.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'video from a script', indicating the tool's core purpose. However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like text_to_video or generate_video, which also generate videos.

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 (e.g., text_to_video, create_asset). It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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