generate_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the asynchronous nature (completed vs. processing) and points to the polling tool, plus the schema mentions webhook callbacks at completed/failed. It does not discuss cost/credit effects, but the key runtime behavior is surfaced.

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 compact and front-loaded: the headline capability appears first, followed by the key lifecycle note and the polling reference. Every clause contributes information without boilerplate.

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 fairly complex tool (model-dependent parameters, optional webhook, async status), the description plus schema covers prerequisites, parameter routing, file input formats, and the polling follow-up. It omits some detail such as failure states in the main description, but those appear in the webhook_url schema description and are discoverable via get_generation_status.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine value by explaining that model_id must come from list_models/get_models_pricing, that parameters follow the model's own input_schema (with an example), and that file inputs may be URLs, data URIs, or /api/tmp paths. This exceeds what the bare schema properties 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?

States a specific action ('Generate video') and expands the scope with concrete modalities (text-to-video, image-to-video, motion control, avatar, lipsync), which separates it from sibling tools like generate_image, generate_audio, and upscale_video. The name is not merely restated.

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?

Provides actionable guidance for the full workflow: find model_id/parameters via list_models/get_models_pricing and poll via get_generation_status when the response is 'processing'. It does not explicitly contrast with generate_image/generate_audio, but the covered preconditions and follow-up steps are clear.

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