gemini_generate_video_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral-disclosure burden. It does disclose the async nature via 'Returns an operation ID to poll,' which is useful, but it omits details like expected duration, failure modes, or resource side effects of generating a video.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It packs the core action, the backend name, and the critical async response detail into minimal space.

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 fully described parameters and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for an async generation tool. It could name the polling companion tool or mention the long-running nature explicitly, but the current description leaves little ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 all parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter nuance beyond indicating the core purpose, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 action ('Generate'), the resource ('a video'), and the technology ('Veo'). It also distinguishes this tool from sibling image/text tools by focusing on video generation and noting the operation-ID response.

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 intended use case is implied through 'Generate a video using Veo,' but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or cross-reference the related polling tool. 'Returns an operation ID to poll' hints at the async workflow but gives no direct guidance on next steps.

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