generate_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context: it describes the async nature ('Returns a requestId for async polling'), payment requirement, and hints at quality modes and audio options. However, it doesn't cover rate limits, error handling, or detailed output behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 and front-loaded: two sentences that efficiently convey core functionality and key constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (6 parameters, async operation, payment requirement) and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the async nature and payment need but lacks details on error cases, polling mechanisms, or output format beyond requestId. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining prompt best practices or modelId selection. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 tool's purpose: 'Generate videos from text prompts.' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('videos'), and distinguishes it from siblings like generate_image or generate_3d_model. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from generate_video_from_image, which is a minor gap.

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 implies usage by stating 'Requires a valid paid payment ID,' which suggests a prerequisite but doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_video_from_image or other media generation tools. No clear when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided.

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