placid_generate_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about credit consumption ('Every 10 seconds of video uses 10 credits'), which is a key behavioral trait not evident from the schema. However, it doesn't mention other important behaviors like processing time, error conditions, or what happens when invalid assets are provided.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds crucial behavioral context about credit usage. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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 video generation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and cost information but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (no output schema), doesn't mention authentication requirements, and provides minimal guidance on usage. The credit information is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 ('Generate a video') and resources involved ('using one or more templates and provided assets'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'placid_generate_image' or 'placid_list_templates' beyond the obvious video vs. image distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'placid_generate_image' or 'placid_list_templates'. It mentions credit usage ('Every 10 seconds of video uses 10 credits') which could imply cost considerations, but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or comparison to sibling tools.

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