gemini_generate_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It clearly explains the async lifecycle: submits the job, polls until done, downloads the result, and can take a few minutes. It also specifies the save location, which is valuable context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a short async-behavior note, and an Args list. Every sentence provides needed information without padding; no redundancy with schema fields, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 async tool with five parameters and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input parameters, behavior, timing, save destination, and return value. The stated return summary is sufficient especially given that an output schema exists.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: prompt, model with default details, negative_prompt, aspect_ratio allowed values, and filename semantics. This adds meaning well beyond the schema's bare type/default information.

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 'Generate a video with Google Veo (via Gemini API) and save to assets/videos', naming the specific verb, resource, and destination. This distinguishes it from sibling image-generation tools by focusing explicitly on video generation.

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 clear context for use, including that it is async and can take minutes, and offers model guidance ('Use veo-3.1-fast-generate-preview for speed'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as the image tools, but the video-specific purpose makes the primary use case unambiguous.

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