media.video.generate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call is asynchronous ('return immediately with a job id') and that jobs are durable, which is valuable. It does not describe failure behavior, cost, retention, or how to track the job afterward, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action, the async behavior, and the return value efficiently.

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 job-submission tool, the description gives the essential async contract but misses the prompt parameter semantics and any mention that job progress/results should be checked via a sibling tool like media.job.status. With no output schema and no annotations, it is minimally useful but not fully self-sufficient.

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 schema marks 'prompt' as required but leaves properties empty, and the description does not mention the prompt or explain its format. The agent is left to guess what a prompt should contain and whether additional parameters are accepted or expected. This is a significant gap for the only required parameter.

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 (submit a durable video-generation job) and the immediate result (a job id), making the tool's main purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like media.video.regenerate or media.image.generate; the distinction is only implicit in the name and phrasing.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as media.video.regenerate or media.image.generate. The phrase 'durable' hints at background processing, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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