interpolate_frames

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful details like pricing and 'audio always included', but it does not disclose async behavior, return formats, or side effects such as saving to output_path.

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 tight and front-loaded: first sentence states the core purpose, second clarifies behavior, and the third adds relevant pricing/audio context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 video-generation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description gives adequate purpose and pricing but omits return-value behavior, asynchronous operation details, and explicit usage scenarios. It relies heavily on the schema for parameter-level completeness.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning pricing and audio, which are already hinted at in the generate_audio parameter note.

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 action ('Generate a video that smoothly transitions between two keyframes') and names the API (Veo 3.1). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like generate_video and extend_video by emphasizing the two-frame interpolation behavior.

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 the tool is for creating interpolated motion between two keyframes, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over generate_video or extend_video. The only sibling mention is a pricing note, not usage guidance.

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