flow_submit_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the silent headless execution mode and the immediate return of media_id, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what happens on failure, whether the submission is asynchronous, or what the output schema contains beyond media_id. The description is not misleading, but it leaves the agent without knowledge of error behavior or side effects.

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 sentences with no filler. The key behavioral trait (silent headless mode) is front-loaded, and the return value is stated. It is concise, though it could have used the second sentence to explain a parameter or usage condition instead of just restating the return.

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 11 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and a complex async submission workflow, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the relationship between start_frame/end_frame, what 'approved' means, how project_id or plan_sha256 are used, or what the output schema contains beyond media_id. An agent would need to open the schema and guess at semantics for most parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate for 11 parameters, but it only mentions 'prompt' and 'start_frame' implicitly via the required fields and 'media_id' as a return value. It does not explain the meaning of model, aspect, profile, approved, duration, end_frame, project_id, resolution, or plan_sha256. The description adds almost no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema's names and defaults already convey.

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 states a specific verb ('submit'), a resource ('single video scene'), and a target ('Google Flow'), and adds a distinctive execution mode ('silent background headless mode'). It distinguishes from siblings like flow_generate_scene and yenflow_submit_scene by naming the flow_* family and the immediate media_id return, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 when to use it: when you need to submit a single scene to Google Flow and get a media_id immediately. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like yenflow_submit_scene or flow_generate_scene. The headless-mode detail hints at a use case (avoiding popups/focus stealing) but no exclusions are given.

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